Pung v. Isabella County · ¶90

The County’s procedure also appears to have departed from historical limits in other ways. Historical tax foreclosure procedures included rigorous notice requirements, which helped ensure that the foreclosed upon taxpayer had a clear opportunity to preserve his property. See, e.g., Cooley 334–337. But here, the township based its foreclosure on a tax that it imposed after sending the Pungs their tax bill, then foreclosed on the property despite the Pungs’ statement that they did not receive notice of the delinquency and would have promptly paid it—as they had paid all of their other taxes—if they had received notice. Historical tax foreclosure sales also included rigorous procedures to ensure that the auction price of whatever property was sold matched, as nearly as possible, the fair market value of that property. See Cooley 305–309, 315–319; see also, e.g., Clute v. Barron, 2 Mich.…

slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.