Michigan Tax Foreclosure Surplus: Rafaeli v. Oakland County Aftermath

Michigan Rafaeli v. Oakland County Aftermath: Claiming Foreclosure Surplus

For decades, local governments in Michigan routinely retained all monetary proceeds generated from tax foreclosure auctions, even when a property sold for significantly more than the delinquent tax debt, interest, penalties, and fees combined. This practice, often referred to by property rights advocates as home equity forfeiture, was dramatically overturned by the Michigan Supreme Court in the landmark 2020 decision Rafaeli, LLC v. Oakland County.

The ruling established that former property owners possess a constitutionally protected property right to any surplus proceeds generated from tax foreclosure sales. Following the court's opinion, the Michigan Legislature enacted Public Act 256 of 2020, establishing a formalized statutory mechanism—codified under Michigan Compiled Laws (MCL) Section 211.78t—for former owners and lienholders to claim these excess funds.

This guide breaks down the legal foundation of Rafaeli, the statutory framework governing surplus claims in Michigan, strict procedural deadlines, and how this state precedent helped reshape tax foreclosure laws across the United States.

The Landmark Ruling: Rafaeli, LLC v. Oakland County

The catalyst for systemic reform involved Uri Rafaeli, a property owner who inadvertently owed $8.41 in unpaid property taxes on a Southfield, Michigan home (a balance that grew to $285.81 after accumulated interest, penalties, and administrative fees). The Oakland County Treasurer foreclosed on the property and sold it at auction for $24,500. Under the General Property Tax Act (GPTA) as it existed at the time, the county retained the entire $24,214 surplus remaining after satisfying the underlying tax debt and associated costs.

In July 2020, the Michigan Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion holding that the county’s retention of surplus proceeds violated Article X, Section 2 of the Michigan Constitution, which prohibits the taking of private property for public use without just compensation.

Key legal takeaways from the ruling include:

• Vested Right in Equity: The court held that while the state has the authority to seize real property to satisfy delinquent tax obligations, its financial interest is strictly limited to the amount of the tax lien plus allowable fees and expenses.
• Surplus as Personal Property: Once the foreclosure auction satisfies the underlying debt and administrative costs, any remaining proceeds transform into personal property belonging to the former owner.
• Constitutional Takings Clause: Retaining equity in excess of the debt constitutes an unconstitutional, uncompensated taking of private property.

The Statutory Framework: MCL 211.78t

Following the Rafaeli decision, the Michigan Legislature enacted Public Act 256 of 2020 to establish a standardized process for claiming excess proceeds. Codified at MCL 211.78t, the statute created the exclusive legal procedure for recovering surplus funds resulting from tax foreclosure sales conducted after July 17, 2020.

MCL 211.78t introduced rigid timelines and a mandatory multi-step administrative and judicial process. Claimants who fail to follow this statutory framework risk forfeiting their right to recover surplus funds.

The Step-by-Step Claim Procedure

Claiming tax foreclosure surplus proceeds in Michigan involves a two-stage process requiring submissions to both the local Foreclosing Governmental Unit (FGU) and the local circuit court.

1. Step One: Submission of Form 5743 (Notice of Intention to Claim Interest)

   • Deadline: July 1 immediately following the tax foreclosure auction.
   • Action: A claimant must complete and deliver State Tax Commission Form 5743 (Notice of Intention to Claim Interest in Foreclosure Sales Proceeds) to the FGU—typically the county treasurer or the State of Michigan.
   • Significance: Filing Form 5743 by the July 1 deadline is a mandatory prerequisite. Missing this initial administrative deadline permanently bars a claimant from seeking excess proceeds under the statute.

2. Step Two: FGU Written Notice

   • Deadline: By January 15 following the foreclosure sale.
   • Action: The FGU must send a response to all claimants who submitted Form 5743. This notice itemizes the total proceeds from the sale, the statutory deductions for taxes and costs, the net surplus available, and a list of all parties who filed a notice of intent.

3. Step Three: Motion for Order of Payment in Circuit Court

   • Filing Window: Between February 1 and May 15 following receipt of the FGU notice.
   • Action: The claimant must file a formal judicial motion for an order of payment in the circuit court that entered the original foreclosure judgment.
   • Judicial Determination: The circuit court holds a hearing to evaluate claimant eligibility, determine legal priority among competing claims, and issue a binding order directing the disbursement of funds.

Priority of Claims: Who Can File?

The right to claim excess proceeds under MCL 211.78t is not restricted solely to the record owner. The statute establishes a clear hierarchy of claimants, matching traditional real property lien priority rules:

• Record Title Holders: The owner or co-owners holding recorded title to the property immediately prior to the foreclosure judgment.
• Mortgagees and Secured Lenders: Financial institutions or private lenders holding valid mortgages that were extinguished by the tax foreclosure.
• Lienholders and Judgment Creditors: Parties holding recorded mechanics' liens, tax liens, or civil judgment liens against the former owner.

When multiple parties claim an interest in the same surplus fund, the circuit court evaluates the legal priority of each interest. Senior lienholders must be satisfied in full before junior lienholders or former property owners receive any remaining funds.

National Impact: From Michigan to the U.S. Supreme Court

The constitutional principles set forth in Rafaeli had significant nationwide ramifications. For decades, numerous states maintained statutes permitting local tax authorities to retain excess proceeds following tax foreclosure sales.

In May 2023, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a landmark, unanimous decision in Tyler v. Hennepin County, affirming the rationale underlying Rafaeli. The U.S. Supreme Court held that retaining surplus home equity after a tax sale violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Tyler ruling effectively codified the core holding of Rafaeli as nationwide precedent, requiring tax sales across all U.S. jurisdictions to provide a clear path for former owners to recover excess proceeds.

Important Operational Considerations

• Deduction of Allowable Fees: The FGU is authorized under MCL 211.78t to deduct all delinquent property taxes, interest, penalties, legal costs, and statutory administrative expenses before calculating the final surplus amount.
• Strict Statutory Adherence: Procedural defaults, such as failing to use the official state form or missing the July 1 administrative deadline, generally operate as a complete bar to recovery.
• Retroactive Claims Litigation: The application of Rafaeli and MCL 211.78t to tax sales occurring prior to July 17, 2020, has been subject to extensive separate litigation, subject to specific judicial interpretations regarding retroactive application and statutory limitations periods.

---

Legal Disclaimer: This article is provided for general informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute formal legal advice. Tax sale surplus claims involve technical statutory requirements and strict deadlines. Individuals seeking to recover surplus proceeds should consult a qualified attorney licensed in Michigan.