Michigan Foreclosure Surplus Claims: The Rafaeli v. Oakland County Legacy

Michigan Foreclosure Surplus Claims: Rafaeli v. Oakland County Aftermath

For decades, tax foreclosures in Michigan operated under a system where local foreclosing governmental units (FGUs), typically county treasurers, retained the entirety of proceeds from tax-foreclosure sales. Even if a property owner owed a minor amount in back taxes, the county could sell the foreclosed real estate at auction and keep the excess windfall.

This practice changed dramatically in July 2020 with the landmark ruling by the Michigan Supreme Court in Rafaeli, LLC v. Oakland County. The decision reshaped property rights in Michigan, concluding that former property owners retain a constitutional right to any surplus funds generated from a tax foreclosure sale above the tax debt and associated fees.

Today, navigating the aftermath of Rafaeli requires a precise understanding of Michigan statutory law, strict administrative deadlines, and evolving judicial interpretations.

The Factual and Legal Basis of Rafaeli v. Oakland County

The facts of Rafaeli illustrate the severity of Michigan's former tax foreclosure scheme. Uri Rafaeli, a property owner, inadvertently underpaid his property taxes on a Southfield, Michigan house by $8.41. With accrued interest, penalties, and fees, the total delinquency grew to $285.81. Oakland County foreclosed on the property under the General Property Tax Act (GPTA) and sold it at a tax auction for $24,500. Instead of deducting the $285.81 debt and returning the remaining $24,214.19 to Rafaeli, the county retained the entire amount.

Rafaeli filed suit, asserting that the county's retention of the excess equity constituted an unconstitutional taking without just compensation.

In a unanimous decision regarding the core constitutional question, the Michigan Supreme Court held that:

1. Former property owners possess a vested common-law property right to the equity or surplus proceeds realized from a tax foreclosure sale.
2. The state's retention of surplus proceeds exceeding the delinquent taxes, interest, penalties, and costs violates the Takings Clause of the Michigan Constitution (Art. X, § 2).

The court clarified that this property right attaches specifically to the excess funds generated at auction—not necessarily the estimated market value prior to the sale.

Codification of the Process: Public Act 256 and MCL 211.78t

In response to the Rafaeli ruling, the Michigan Legislature enacted Public Act 256 of 2020, amending the General Property Tax Act to establish a formal statutory mechanism for claiming excess foreclosure proceeds. Codified primarily at Michigan Compiled Laws (MCL) Section 211.78t, the statute sets forth strict procedural steps that claimants must follow.

Under MCL 211.78t, a foreclosing governmental unit cannot automatically disburse surplus funds. Instead, former owners and lienholders must proactively register their intent and file formal court petitions within narrow statutory windows.

Step-by-Step Process and Critical Deadlines

Claiming surplus funds in Michigan involves a two-phase statutory process. Failure to strictly adhere to these deadlines generally results in a complete forfeiture of the right to claim excess proceeds.

Phase 1: Filing the Notice of Intention

• Form Requirement: A claimant must complete and submit State Tax Commission Form 5743 (Notice of Intention to Claim Interest in Foreclosure Proceeds).
• Filing Deadline: The form must be received by the foreclosing governmental unit by July 1 immediately following the effective date of the tax foreclosure.
• Purpose: This notice preserves the claimant's right to pursue excess proceeds following the upcoming auction.

Phase 2: Judicial Motion for Distribution

• Notice from FGU: By January 31 of the year following the sale, the foreclosing unit must send a notice to all claimants who filed Form 5743, detailing the total proceeds and itemized costs.
• Court Petition Window: Between February 1 and May 15 of the year following the auction sale, the claimant must file a motion in the Circuit Court where the foreclosure judgment was entered.
• Court Hearing: The Circuit Court holds a hearing to determine the validity of claims, priority of competing interests, and final distribution amounts.

Who Can Claim Surplus Proceeds?

The statutory framework recognizes multiple classes of potential claimants. However, rights are evaluated according to legal priority:

• Title Owners: The record title owner at the time of the judgment of foreclosure.
• Lienholders and Mortgagees: Encumbrancers who held a valid, recorded interest in the property prior to foreclosure.
• Heirs and Personal Representatives: Estates or legal heirs of a deceased property owner, provided appropriate probate documentation is presented.

When multiple parties claim an interest in the same property's proceeds, the Circuit Court allocates funds based on traditional property priorities. Senior mortgagees and senior lienholders typically receive payment before the former property owner receives any remaining balance.

Federal Impact and National Echoes

The principles established in Rafaeli resonated far beyond Michigan's borders:

• Hall v. Meisner (6th Circuit): In 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit addressed Michigan's practice under federal constitutional law, confirming that taking private equity through tax foreclosures violates the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause.
• Tyler v. Hennepin County (U.S. Supreme Court): In May 2023, the United States Supreme Court unanimously held in Tyler v. Hennepin County that retaining excess tax-sale proceeds violates the Takings Clause of the Federal Constitution. The Tyler decision solidified the Rafaeli rationale as binding constitutional law across all fifty states.

Current Challenges: Retroactivity and Strict Compliance

Despite clear statutory rules for current foreclosures, two major legal challenges persist in Michigan:

1. Retroactivity Questions: Substantial litigation has centered on whether property owners foreclosed upon prior to the July 2020 Rafaeli decision can recover surplus funds. Courts have drawn distinct boundaries between pre-decision sales and claims governed by MCL 211.78t.
2. Strict Compliance Traps: Michigan courts strictly enforce the July 1 filing deadline. Claimants who miss Form 5743 submissions routinely see their claims dismissed, regardless of the equitable merits of their case.

Understanding these strict rules is vital for anyone seeking recovery of excess tax sale proceeds in Michigan.

---

Disclaimer: This article is intended solely for educational and informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Property owners, heirs, and lienholders seeking to recover foreclosure surplus proceeds in Michigan should consult a licensed attorney to review specific deadlines, local court procedures, and legal rights.