Background
Uldis Felkers, Karen Kacynski, the Estate of Terry Sczesny, and Ramon Virella alleged that Kent County foreclosed on their properties for unpaid taxes, sold the properties, and retained proceeds exceeding their tax debts. The alleged surpluses ranged from $17,750 to $39,350.
The plaintiffs asserted takings and procedural due process claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court dismissed those claims as untimely, rejecting the plaintiffs’ argument that the limitations period had been tolled by Wayside Church v. Van Buren County, a separate class action challenging similar Michigan county tax-foreclosure practices. The Sixth Circuit considered the appeal together with Frederick Grainger’s parallel case against Ottawa County.
The Court’s Holding
The Sixth Circuit vacated the dismissal and remanded. Michigan’s three-year residual limitations period applies to the plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims, as do Michigan’s tolling rules. Under Michigan Court Rule 3.501(F), commencement of a class action tolls the limitations period for everyone within the class described in the complaint, even if that class could not ultimately be certified.
The court held that Wayside could toll the plaintiffs’ claims, including during the class action’s temporary dismissal, if two conditions are satisfied: the plaintiffs were within the class described in the Wayside complaint, and Kent County had sufficient notice—meaning it was generally aware of the claims and parties it would face. Because the district court had not resolved those issues under the governing standard, the Sixth Circuit remanded for it to do so.
Key Takeaways
- Michigan’s class-action tolling rule turns on the class described in the complaint, not merely the class later certified.
- Tolling may apply even when Michigan law would not permit certification of the proposed defendant class.
- On remand, the district court must determine class membership and whether Kent County had adequate notice of the claims and potential parties.
Why It Matters
The decision prevents dismissal of the property owners’ constitutional claims based on an unduly narrow view of Michigan class-action tolling. It confirms that filing a class complaint may preserve claims for described class members even when certification obstacles later arise.
The ruling does not decide the merits of the takings or due process claims, nor does it conclusively hold that the claims are timely. Those questions depend on the district court’s findings regarding the Wayside class definition and the county’s notice.