Tawanda Hall v. Andrew Meisner, 51 F.4th 185

Background

Under Michigan's General Property Tax Act, unpaid taxes are returned delinquent each March; if unpaid the following year the property is forfeited and a county may petition for foreclosure that vests “absolute title” effective March 31.
The Act permits the State or municipality to acquire property for the minimum bid (the tax delinquency) and does not provide for refunding any surplus to former owners after disposition.
Oakland County foreclosed on plaintiffs Hall, the Lees, and Govan for tax delinquencies (ranging ~$22k–$43k), conveyed title to the city and then to redevelopment entities, which later sold the homes for market value (one for ~$308,000); plaintiffs received no surplus.
Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging a Fifth Amendment taking of their equitable interest (equity) in their homes; the district court dismissed. Plaintiffs appealed.
The Sixth Circuit held that (as alleged) the County’s acquisition of "absolute title" without a public foreclosure sale or surplus refund extinguished plaintiffs’ equitable title and therefore effected a taking without just compensation.
The court reversed dismissal of the federal Takings Clause claim against Oakland County, vacated and remanded the state‑constitutional takings claim to allow abstention under Pullman, and affirmed dismissal of several other claims (excessive fines, due process, unjust enrichment).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether County’s transfer of “absolute title” without refunding surplus violated the Takings Clause	Hall et al.: They held equitable title (equity) in their homes; County took that interest without compensation.	County: Under Michigan law owner’s property right is limited to surplus after a public foreclosure sale; here no surplus/ sale so no compensable property taken.	Court: Yes—on the alleged facts the County extinguished equitable title (a traditional property interest) without compensation, violating the Fifth Amendment.
Whether property interests for takings are defined solely by state statutory scheme	Plaintiffs: Federal law protects long‑recognized property interests; a state cannot nullify them by statute (Webb/Phillips).	Defendants: Michigan statute and Rafaeli define the owner’s post‑foreclosure entitlement; state law governs.	Court: Property interests are informed by state law but the state may not by ipse dixit abolish traditional equitable interests to avoid Takings Clause.
Whether Michigan’s tax foreclosure operated as strict foreclosure vs. foreclosure by sale	Plaintiffs: The Act’s vesting of absolute title without public sale or surplus payment functioned as strict foreclosure extinguishing equity.	Defendants: The statutory foreclosure process is valid and conforms to state law as interpreted in Rafaeli.	Court: Effectively strict foreclosure—contrary to long‑standing Anglo‑American principles requiring sale and surplus refund—so the statutory scheme cannot evade federal takings protections.
Who is liable and procedural outcome for remaining claims	Plaintiffs: County effectuated the taking and is liable; seek compensation; state takings claim should be decided by state courts.	Defendants: Multiple actors involved; various defenses to other claims.	Court: County alone effectuated the taking; federal takings claim against County survives dismissal; Michigan takings claim remanded for Pullman abstention; other claims dismissed/affirmed.

Key Cases Cited

Webb's Fabulous Pharmacies, Inc. v. Beckwith, 449 U.S. 155 (1980) (state may not recharacterize private property as public to avoid compensation)
Phillips v. Washington Legal Found., 524 U.S. 156 (1998) (a State cannot disavow traditional property interests to sidestep the Takings Clause)
Rafaeli, LLC v. Oakland County, 505 Mich. 429 (2020) (Michigan Supreme Court interpretation of the tax‑foreclosure Act)
Knick v. Township of Scott, 139 S. Ct. 2162 (2019) (takings claim accrues when the government takes property)
Bronson v. Kinzie, 42 U.S. 311 (1843) (equitable title survives legal defaults; foreclosure sale required to extinguish equitable interest)
BFP v. Resolution Trust Corp., 511 U.S. 531 (1994) (discusses historical role of strict foreclosure and foreclosure by sale)
Nelson v. City of New York, 352 U.S. 103 (1956) (addressed foreclosure process and notice; did not negate historic equitable interests)
United States v. General Motors Corp., 323 U.S. 373 (1945) (Takings Clause protects every variety of property interest)