Now Accepting New Clients!

Court finds that county properly moved foreclosed properties into land bank

In an issue of first impression, the court held that the trial court, in three separate cases filed by the appellants-individuals, companies, and associations, did not err by granting summary disposition for the appellees-treasurer, county, city, and land bank, or by denying their motion to set aside the quiet-title and foreclosure judgment entered in favor of the land bank, on their claims that appellees' actions deprived them of the opportunity to purchase certain tax-foreclosed properties. Appellants claimed the appellees unlawfully moved foreclosed properties into the land bank, thus depriving them of their right to bid on the properties. The trial court ruled in favor of appellees, and denied appellants' motion to set aside the quiet title and foreclosure judgment for the land bank. On appeal, the court first rejected their arguments that the properties were obtained "in direct contravention of the authority granted to the units of government and the governmental officer" under the law, and the appellees violated ordinances, policies, or resolutions. It held that the tax-foreclosed properties were "properly purchased by" the county from the treasurer, and the county was not required to offer them for sale by public auction. "[R]equiring the state, a city, village, or township, or a county to subsequently sell by public auction foreclosed properties it had purchased under MCL 211.78m(1), would inappropriately read language into MCL 211.78m(2); by its express words, subsection 2 specifically applies to sales by the foreclosing governmental unit after the state, a city, village, or township, or a county have not exercised their respective right to purchase the property under MCL 211.78m(1)." Further, the county "did in fact purchase the properties from" the treasurer, and "MCL 124.755(6) and MCL 211.78m do not place restrictions on, or even address, a local governmental unit's use or subsequent sale of such properties." Similarly, the court held that the trial court did not err by concluding that the city, like the county, did not violate the statutes when it purchased the tax-foreclosed properties from the treasurer and then immediately sold them to the land bank. "The purchase in this case was for a public purpose, which was to restore blighted properties and to provide housing on tax-foreclosed properties. Other than the restriction that the purchase be for a public purpose, the Legislature did not restrict in any way how the city may convey the property thereafter." The "existing contract to sell the property to [the land bank] immediately after it purchased the properties, as well as the terms related to financing the sale, do not invalidate [the city's] purchase of the tax-foreclosed properties." The court also rejected appellants' argument that the process by which the land bank obtained the properties "violated due process and otherwise ran afoul of" constitutional guarantees. Affirmed.

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