Background
The Wayne County Treasurer sought foreclosure under Michigan’s General Property Tax Act on multiple properties with unpaid taxes, including property owned by Jacqueline Cook. The Treasurer sent notices of the show-cause and foreclosure hearings to Cook’s home address by certified and first-class mail, posted notice conspicuously at the occupied property after an unsuccessful attempt at personal contact, and published notice in the Detroit Legal News.
The notices identified February 21 and 22, 2024, as the foreclosure-hearing dates, and the register of actions and foreclosure judgment confirmed that hearings occurred on those dates. After entry of the foreclosure judgment, Cook moved for relief under MCR 2.612(C), arguing that deficient notice violated due process. The circuit court found that she had received constitutionally sufficient notice, concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to set aside the judgment, granted summary disposition to the Treasurer, and denied Cook’s motion.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals first held that it had jurisdiction to consider Cook’s appeal. Because Michigan courts lose authority under MCL 211.78k to modify a foreclosure judgment only when constitutionally adequate notice was provided, the appellate court necessarily could decide Cook’s due-process challenge before determining whether the statute’s jurisdictional bar applied.
The court held that the Treasurer’s notice efforts were reasonably calculated under all the circumstances to inform Cook of the foreclosure proceedings. Notice was mailed to her correct address of record, first-class mail was presumed delivered, notice was posted at the occupied property where her family member lived, and notice was published. No evidence showed that the certified mailing was returned unclaimed, and due process did not require actual receipt. The notices also stated the correct February hearing dates; Cook mistakenly treated the later judgment-entry date as the hearing date. Because notice satisfied due process, MCL 211.78k deprived the circuit court of jurisdiction to modify or vacate the foreclosure judgment, and the appellate court affirmed.
Key Takeaways
- An appellate court may examine whether notice satisfied due process because that determination controls whether MCL 211.78k’s jurisdictional bar applies.
- Actual receipt is unnecessary when the government uses methods reasonably calculated to provide notice, including mailing notice to the owner’s verified address of record.
- Once constitutionally adequate notice is established, a Michigan circuit court lacks jurisdiction to modify or vacate the tax-foreclosure judgment under MCL 211.78k.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that compliance with the General Property Tax Act’s notice provisions is not automatically dispositive; courts must still conduct the constitutional inquiry into whether the government’s efforts were reasonably calculated to reach the owner. Multiple complementary methods—mailing to a verified address, posting at an occupied property, and publication—supported the finding of adequate notice here.
For owners seeking postjudgment relief, merely asserting nonreceipt will not overcome the statutory finality of a foreclosure judgment when the governmental unit used constitutionally reasonable notice procedures and the record does not show that those efforts failed in a way requiring additional steps.