FAYTIMA HOWARD v. MACOMB COUNTY, MICHIGAN - Articles

All Content

FAYTIMA HOWARD v. MACOMB COUNTY, MICHIGAN

Posted by: Azya Thornton on Mar 28, 2025

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Philip L. Ellison, OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNSEL PLC, Hemlock, Michigan, for Appellant.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Frank Krycia, MACOMB COUNTY, Mount Clemens, Michigan, for Appellee.

Attorneys 3: ARGUED: Theodore Seitz, DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC, Lansing, Michigan, for Amicus Curiae.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Philip L. Ellison, OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNSEL PLC, Hemlock, Michigan, for Appellant.

Attorneys 5: ON BRIEF: Frank Krycia, MACOMB COUNTY, Mount Clemens, Michigan, for Appellee.

Attorneys 6: Theodore W. Seitz, Mark J. Magyar, DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC, Lansing, Michigan, Matthew B. Hodges, OFFICE OF THE MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL, Lansing, Michigan, Donald R. Visser, VISSER AND ASSOCIATES, PLLC, Kentwood, Michigan, for Amici Curiae.

Judge(s): SUTTON, Chief Judge; MOORE and RITZ, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Bay City

SUTTON, Chief Judge. After Faytima Howard failed to pay her property taxes, Macomb County seized and sold her property in 2023. She sued, alleging that the county violated the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment by keeping proceeds allegedly in excess of her tax debt. There was a time when the Michigan foreclosure regime violated the State and Federal Constitutions. In 2020, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that Michigan’s failure to compensate property owners for the gap between their tax debts and the price realized from foreclosure sales of their property violated the Takings Clause of the Michigan Constitution. See Rafaeli, LLC v. Oakland County, 952 N.W.2d 434, 466 (Mich. 2020). Two years later, we held that the same law violated the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution. See Hall v. Meisner, 51 F.4th 185, 196 (6th Cir. 2022). Howard faces two problems in relying on those precedents today. One is that the State, in response to the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision, amended its law in 2020 to permit property owners to obtain any surplus value in their foreclosed properties. The new law corrected the constitutional deficiencies of the old one. The other is that Howard did not take advantage of that process. For these reasons, the district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. We affirm.

Attachments: