Now Accepting New Clients!

County treasurer not liable for condo association dues after tax foreclosure

Holding that the defendant-county treasurer was not liable for the plaintiff-condo association's assessments during the time it held title to condo units that it foreclosed upon, the court affirmed the trial court's order granting defendant summary disposition. A judgment of foreclosure was entered due to delinquent property taxes, vesting absolute title to units 40-42 and 67-100 in defendant if they were not redeemed. The redemption period lapsed, defendant signed a notice of foreclosure for each unit, had the notices recorded, and conducted public sales of the units. Plaintiff contended that defendant was required to pay the common expenses described in its bylaws for the time period defendant was an owner of the units. As defendant pointed out, "the GPTA required defendant to foreclose on the forfeited units. Defendant cannot be held liable for assessments when it was performing a statutory obligation." While plaintiff argued that the version of MCL 211.78(5) in effect at the relevant time provided that defendant's acquisition was voluntary, the court concluded that "the trial court properly held that the Legislature intended that this section serve to insulate the GPTA from a challenge under the Headlee Amendment, which prohibits unfunded mandates." The court found that to "hold that the word 'voluntary' used in MCL 211.78(5) is evidence that foreclosure proceedings under the GPTA are not mandatory would render the limitation 'for the purpose of [the Headlee Amendment]' nugatory." Defendant was also correct that "the GPTA provides no mechanism by which it can pay plaintiff's assessments." Plaintiff asserted that MCL 211.78m(8)(e) allowed defendant to pay maintenance costs and the assessments were a maintenance cost. However, even if a condo assessment could be considered a maintenance cost, it was clear from the record that "there would have been no proceeds available to pay those costs. The first priority under MCL 211.78m(8)(a) is to pay 'all taxes, interest, and fees on all of the property' into the 'delinquent tax revolving fund.'" The evidence showed that the sales of the units did not even generate enough proceeds to cover the taxes due on the properties. Further, noting the general rule that a municipality cannot be legally bound to perform an ultra vires act, the court found that defendant did not have the legal authority under the GPTA to pay the condo assessments.

Antenuptial agreement held to be valid and enforceable

The court held that the parties' antenuptial agreement was valid and enforceable, concluding that to invalidate it on the basis of one party's fault would contravene the agreement's clear and unambiguous language, and that as a matter of law, the...

Don't let a bad decision, unfair contract, or a messy divorce get in the way of a promising future!
Contact the experienced team at Aldrich Legal Services today to schedule your free initial
and secure reliable and trustworthy representation today!
Get the Help You Need From a Team You Can Truly Count On: (734) 404-3000