Michigan Foreclosure Surplus: Rafaeli v. Oakland County Rules and Process

The Landmark Ruling in Rafaeli v. Oakland County

In July 2020, the Michigan Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling that fundamentally transformed tax foreclosure law across the state. In Rafaeli, LLC v. Oakland County, the court addressed a long-standing practice often characterized as municipal equity theft, wherein local governments retained the full purchase price of foreclosed properties at tax auction, even when the proceeds far exceeded the outstanding tax debt, interest, penalties, and administrative fees.

The facts of the case highlighted the stark nature of Michigan's prior property tax enforcement mechanism. Uri Rafaeli had owed $8.41 in unpaid property taxes on a Southfield property, an amount that grew to $285.81 after accumulated interest and fees. Oakland County foreclosed on the property and sold it at auction for $24,500, retaining the entire $24,214.19 surplus. The Michigan Supreme Court held that this practice violated the Michigan Constitution's Takings Clause, ruling that former property owners retain a vested property right in the surplus proceeds generated from tax foreclosure sales.

The Constitutional Principle: Equity as Protected Property

The core legal foundation of Rafaeli rests on traditional common-law principles recognized under Article X, Section 2 of the Michigan Constitution. The court determined that while foreclosing governmental units (FGUs) possess legitimate statutory authority to foreclose upon and sell real property to recover delinquent taxes, that authority ends once the public debt is fully satisfied.

The court established several foundational legal principles:

• Equity as Personal Property: Financial equity remaining after satisfying tax debts and administrative costs constitutes personal property belonging to the former title holder.
• Proportionality in Enforcement: Government seizure of property value beyond the underlying tax obligation exceeds constitutional authority, amounting to an unconstitutional taking without just compensation.
• Vested Right at Sale: The right to surplus proceeds attaches at the time of the tax sale, provided the property generates proceeds in excess of the total legal debt.

Legislative Response: Public Act 256 of 2020 and MCL 211.78t

Following the Rafaeli decision, the Michigan Legislature enacted Public Act 256 of 2020 to establish a standardized statutory mechanism governing claims for surplus proceeds. This legislation amended the General Property Tax Act (GPTA) by introducing Michigan Compiled Laws (MCL) Section 211.78t, creating an exclusive administrative and judicial framework for claiming excess proceeds.

MCL 211.78t sets forth strict procedural guidelines designed to ensure notice to affected parties while imposing mandatory timelines. The statutory scheme establishes precise rules for how funds are held, noticed, and eventually distributed by circuit courts following tax sales conducted under MCL 211.78m.

Step-by-Step Mechanism for Claiming Surplus Proceeds

To claim excess proceeds under MCL 211.78t, claimants must navigate a precise multi-step judicial process. Failure to satisfy any statutory prerequisite can permanently bar recovery.

1. Notice of Intention to Claim (Form 5743)

The claimant must file Michigan Department of Treasury Form 5743, officially titled the Notice of Intention to Claim Interest in Foreclosure Sales Proceeds, with the appropriate Foreclosing Governmental Unit (typically the county treasurer).

2. Statutory Filing Deadline

For tax sales occurring after December 22, 2020, Form 5743 must be received by the FGU by July 1 immediately following the foreclosure sale. For example, if a property is sold at tax auction in September 2023, the claimant must file Form 5743 by July 1, 2024.

3. FGU Motion and Notice

By January 31 following the July 1 filing deadline, the FGU must file a motion in the circuit court where the foreclosure judgment was entered. The FGU must provide formal notice to all individuals or entities that timely submitted Form 5743, detailing the total surplus generated and identifying recorded liens or encumbrances.

4. Circuit Court Hearing and Order

Between February 1 and May 15 following the FGU's motion, the circuit court schedules a hearing to determine the validity and priority of claims. The court then issues an order directing the distribution of surplus funds based on statutory priority rules.

Priority of Claims and Judicial Distribution

Surplus proceeds are not automatically disbursed to the former title holder. Instead, MCL 211.78t mandates a strict order of priority for distributing excess funds:

• Administrative and Foreclosure Costs: Satisfaction of any remaining tax debts, administrative fees, auction costs, and interest owed to the FGU.
• Senior Security Interests and Recorded Liens: Payment to valid lienholders, including mortgagees, construction lien claimants, and judgment creditors, based on their recorded legal priority.
• Former Property Owner: The remaining equity balance is distributed to the individual or entity holding legal title immediately prior to the entry of the foreclosure judgment.

If multiple parties assert conflicting interests, the circuit court resolves competing priority claims. Any unclaimed excess funds ultimately revert to the foreclosing governmental unit after statutory retention periods expire.

Retrospective Claims and Continuing Litigation

One of the most heavily litigated aspects of post-Rafaeli jurisprudence involves claims arising from foreclosures that occurred prior to the December 22, 2020 effective date of PA 256. In Proctor v. Saginaw County and subsequent appellate decisions, Michigan courts addressed the retroactive application of Rafaeli and MCL 211.78t.

While the Legislature attempted to limit retroactive recovery procedures, courts confirmed that property owners foreclosed upon prior to December 22, 2020, retain constitutional takings claims under Rafaeli. However, these pre-2020 claims involve complex procedural hurdles, including class-action litigation structures, statute of limitations defenses (governed by Michigan's six-year limit for constitutional takings), and jurisdictional disputes between county circuit courts and the Michigan Court of Claims.

Broader Impact: The Path to Tyler v. Hennepin County

The legal principles established in Rafaeli served as a direct catalyst for federal judicial reform. In 2023, the United States Supreme Court handed down its decision in Tyler v. Hennepin County, adopting reasoning congruent with Michigan's jurisprudence.

Writing for a unanimous court, Chief Justice John Roberts confirmed that retaining property equity beyond a tax debt violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Tyler decision solidified equity protections nationwide, rendering statutory schemes that permit government retention of tax sale surpluses unconstitutional across all fifty states.

Key Takeaways for Property Owners and Lienholders

Navigating Michigan tax surplus recovery requires rigorous adherence to statutory requirements:

• Strict Deadlines: Missing the July 1 filing deadline for Form 5743 generally forfeits the right to recover excess proceeds for post-2020 sales.
• Lien Priority Matters: Former property owners must account for outstanding mortgages and judgment liens, which take precedence over fee title claims.
• Proactive Tracking: Property owners facing tax foreclosure should closely monitor auction outcomes to evaluate potential surplus funds and prepare timely claims.

---

Disclaimer: This article is provided solely for educational and informational purposes as a general legal news overview. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Tax foreclosure laws, statutory deadlines, and judicial procedures are complex and subject to change. Property owners and lienholders should consult a qualified attorney licensed in Michigan to address specific legal rights and individual claims.