in Re Petition of Tuscola County Treasurer for Foreclosure
317 Mich. App. 688
Mich. Ct. App.2016Background
- Respondent owned property with unpaid 2011–2012 property taxes; petitioner (Tuscola County Treasurer) filed a foreclosure petition including the parcel.
- Circuit court entered a final judgment of foreclosure on February 2, 2015; redemption rights expired March 31, 2015; respondent did not redeem or appeal.
- An auction was scheduled for August 26, 2015. On August 3, 2015 respondent moved under MCR 2.612(C)(1)(f) to conditionally set aside the foreclosure judgment, stating she had secured funds and had attempted payment earlier.
- The circuit court granted conditional relief, ordering restoration of the property if respondent paid delinquent taxes and fees by August 20, 2015; respondent paid and no auction occurred.
- Petitioner appealed, arguing the circuit court lacked jurisdiction under MCL 211.78k(5)(g) and (6); respondent cross-appealed claiming those statutory limits violated separation of powers.
Issues
| Issue | Petitioner’s Argument | Respondent’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court had jurisdiction to set aside a foreclosure judgment after the statutory redemption period | MCL 211.78k(5)(g) and (6) strip the court of power to modify foreclosure judgments after redemption expires; thus the court lacked jurisdiction to grant relief | Circuit court could exercise rule-based relief under MCR 2.612(C)(1)(f) to set aside judgment for equitable reasons | Court held petitioner correct: circuit court lacked jurisdiction because redemption period expired and respondent did not allege a due-process violation |
| Whether MCL 211.78k(5)(g) (and related subsection (6)) violates separation of powers by infringing the Supreme Court’s rulemaking authority | Legislature may limit judicial power here as substantive policy to provide finality and return property to tax rolls; statute governs substantive rights, not mere procedure | Statute conflicts with MCR 2.612(C)(1)(f); court rule should control practice and procedure allowing relief from judgment | Court held the statute is constitutional under separation of powers: it reflects substantive legislative policy and does not impermissibly usurp rulemaking authority |
Key Cases Cited
- 478 Mich 1 (Michigan Supreme Court) (statute limiting post-redemption judicial modification of foreclosure judgments is unconstitutional only insofar as it would preclude relief when there was a denial of due process)
- 470 Mich 415 (Michigan Supreme Court) (Separation-of-powers and standard of review for statute constitutionality)
- 461 Mich 15 (Michigan Supreme Court) (limits on court rulemaking where substantive legislative policy governs)
- 254 Mich App 50 (Michigan Court of Appeals) (presumption of statute constitutionality and interplay of statutes with court rules)