In re Petition of Macomb County Treasurer for Foreclosure

Summary

The Michigan Court of Appeals held that a mortgagee who failed to comply with the General Property Tax Act's procedures for claiming surplus proceeds from a tax-foreclosure sale could not intervene in the post-foreclosure surplus-proceeds proceedings. The court concluded that MCL 211.78t provides the exclusive mechanism for recovering those proceeds and that the mortgagee lacked a legally protected interest after its lien was extinguished. The court reversed the trial court's order granting intervention and remanded for further proceedings.

Holdings

1. MCL 211.78t establishes the exclusive mechanism for a claimant to claim and receive surplus proceeds distributed under that statute; a third-party claim such as equitable subrogation cannot be used to obtain a share of those proceeds outside the statutory procedure.
2. Banyon was not entitled to intervene as of right because, after the foreclosure extinguished its mortgage lien and after it failed to comply with MCL 211.78t, it lacked a legally protected interest in the surplus proceeds.
3. Banyon was not entitled to permissive intervention because its proposed contract and equitable-subrogation claims did not share a question of law or fact with the statutory surplus-proceeds distribution proceeding.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Banyon had a legally protected interest in the surplus proceeds sufficient to intervene as of right under MCR 2.209(A)(3) after failing to comply with MCL 211.78t.
2. Whether Banyon's proposed claims shared a question of law or fact with the surplus-proceeds proceeding sufficient for permissive intervention under MCR 2.209(B)(2).
3. Whether MCL 211.78t provides the exclusive mechanism for claiming and receiving surplus proceeds from a tax-foreclosure sale.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded