City of Bay City v. Bay County Treasurer
292 Mich. App. 156
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Michigan tax-foreclosure scheme grants state right of first refusal; if state declines, local government may purchase for a public purpose at minimum bid equal to total taxes, interest, and fees; PA 123 (1999) allowed counties to opt in as foreclosing units; Bay County elected in 2004; Bay City sought Wilson parcel and others; trial court denied mandamus and declaratory relief, bench trial followed with mixed results; on appeal, court reversed on public purpose interpretation and authority questions, remanding; the Wilson parcel was the central issue on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff’s Wilson property purchase satisfied a public purpose under MCL 211.78m(l). | Bay City had a stated public purpose to redevelop and stimulate private investment. | Public purpose must be capable of being carried out efficiently and expeditiously; Wilson plan was too speculative. | Public purpose satisfied; no efficiency/expeditiousness requirement read into statute; trial court abused discretion. |
| Whether the county treasurer had authority to independently review a municipality’s public purpose. | Review of public-purpose determination is a legislative function by the municipality; treasurer should not have independent review. | FGU should assess which properties to sell to maximize fund integrity; some review is appropriate. | Determination of public purpose is legislative; treasurer lacks independent review authority; mandamus proper. |
| Whether defendant’s settlement offer to convey the Wilson property moots the case. | Settlement offer does not render case moot unless accepted; controversy continues. | Offer may moot mandamus claim. | Not moot; ongoing controversy remains despite settlement offer. |
Key Cases Cited
- MGM Grand Detroit, LLC v Community Coalition for Empowerment, Inc., 465 Mich 303 (2001) (settlement timing not extinguishing appeal; mootness considerations under public-significance exception)
- Oak Park & River Forest High Sch Dist 200 Bd of Ed v Ill State Bd of Ed, 79 F.3d 654 (7th Cir. 1996) (settlement choices do not render a case moot; desire for precedent not MOOTness)
- Gregory Marina, Inc v Detroit, 378 Mich 364 (1966) (public purpose is legislative, not judicial; separation of powers)
- People v Francisco, 474 Mich 82 (2006) (interpretation of statute; mandatory act concepts)
- Casco Twp v Secretary of State, 472 Mich 566 (2005) (abuse of discretion standards; de novo review for legal questions)