Yono v County of Ingham (2023)

After the plaintiff failed to pay property taxes in 2014 and 2015 on commercial industrial property, defendants Ingham County and the Ingham County Treasurer foreclosed on the property.  The property was made available at an auction, but it did not sell and was then transferred to defendant Ingham County Land Bank Fast Track Authority.  The plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging that an unconstitutional taking occurred because he never received the value of the equity he had in the property from the defendants.  He also asserted a bailment claim, alleging that the defendants were in possession of personal property that had been kept on the property that was taken.   The trial court granted summary disposition in favor of the defendants.  The Court of Appeals, in an unpublished opinion, reversed in part, holding that the trial court erred by granting the defendants’ motion for summary disposition with respect to the plaintiff’s unconstitutional taking claim.  The Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of summary disposition with respect to the bailment claim.  The Supreme Court has ordered oral argument on the application to address whether the Court of Appeals erred in: (1) holding that the plaintiff successfully established that the defendants violated the Takings Clause of the Michigan Constitution, Const 1963, art 10, § 2; and (2) directing the Ingham Circuit Court to calculate the “surplus” owed on the property by reference to the value of the property less what the plaintiff owed on it when the foreclosure occurred.  The Supreme Court has directed the Clerk to schedule the oral argument in this case for the same future session as the Court when it will hear oral argument in Jackson v Southfield Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative (Docket No. 166320).