in Re Petition of Isabella County Treasurer
329858
| Mich. Ct. App. | Apr 18, 2017Background
- Isabella County Treasurer issued a 2012 tax bill initially showing a principal-residence exemption (PRE), but then issued a revised bill denying the PRE; Estate of Timothy Pung paid the first bill but not the higher revised amount.
- Treasurer sent multiple mailed notices to Michael Pung’s Alma address, mailed notices to the subject property (3176 St. Andrews), published notices in The Morning Sun, and physically posted a notice on the front door.
- Foreclosure proceedings proceeded after nonpayment: show-cause hearings and a judicial-foreclosure hearing were scheduled; Estate did not appear; judgment of foreclosure entered Feb 20, 2015; redemption period expired without redemption.
- Estate moved to set aside the foreclosure, claiming it received no notice until April 2015 and asserting due-process and statutory-notice defects.
- The circuit court found statutory notices satisfied but concluded Estate’s due-process rights were violated (Treasurer had constructive knowledge Estate lacked actual notice) and set aside the foreclosure.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the Treasurer’s mailed, posted, and published notices were reasonably calculated to provide notice and thus satisfied due process; it also rejected Estate’s statutory-notice and alternative arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Treasurer) | Defendant's Argument (Estate of Pung) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether notice satisfied due process | Notices mailed to known addresses, posted on property, published—constitutionally sufficient | Estate received no actual notice until April 2015; Treasurer should have taken extra steps | Court: Due process satisfied; no additional steps required |
| Whether Treasurer complied with GPTA statutory-notice requirements | Treasurer complied with statutory notice via certified mail, posting, and publication | Notices failed to meet GPTA requirements | Court: Statutory-compliance question resolved by due-process holding; no independent defect shown |
| Whether circuit court could set aside foreclosure on non–due-process grounds after redemption expired | Only a due-process violation could invalidate the foreclosure after redemption period | Circuit court could set aside for other equitable/technical reasons | Court: Lacked authority; only due-process defect could void foreclosure post-redemption |
Key Cases Cited
- Sidun v. Wayne Co. Treasurer, 481 Mich. 503 (explaining due-process notice standard and consideration of government-held information)
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (notice must be reasonably calculated to inform interested parties)
- Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (when mail is returned undelivered, government must take reasonable additional steps)
- Dow v. Michigan, 396 Mich. 192 (government need not use personal service; notice means reasonably calculated methods)
- In re Petition by Wayne Co. Treasurer, 478 Mich. 1 (post-redemption challenge to foreclosure must be based on deprivation of due process)