Sal-Mar Royal Village LLC v. MacOmb County Treasurer ( 2014 )


Menu:
  • Order                                                                      Michigan Supreme Court
    Lansing, Michigan
    November 26, 2014                                                                Robert P. Young, Jr.,
    Chief Justice
    Michael F. Cavanagh
    Stephen J. Markman
    147384                                                                                Mary Beth Kelly
    Brian K. Zahra
    Bridget M. McCormack
    SAL-MAR ROYAL VILLAGE, LLC,                                                          David F. Viviano,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,                                                                     Justices
    v                                                      SC: 147384
    COA: 308659
    Macomb CC: 2011-004061-AW
    MACOMB COUNTY TREASURER,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    _________________________________________/
    On order of the Court, leave to appeal having been granted and the briefs and oral
    arguments of the parties having been considered by the Court, we REVERSE both the
    May 30, 2013 and the February 25, 2014 judgments of the Court of Appeals. Macomb
    County and Macomb Township were not in privity with respect to waiving interest and
    fees lawfully assessed by the county on the delinquent taxes of plaintiff, Sal-Mar Royal
    Village, LLC.
    A subordinate governmental unit cannot bind a superior unit unless the
    subordinate unit is authorized to represent the superior. See Baraga v State Tax Comm,
    
    466 Mich 264
    , 270 (2002), quoting 50 CJS, Judgments, § 869, p 443. Here there is no
    indication that the township was ever empowered to represent the county with respect to
    matters incidental to delinquent tax collection. On the contrary, the statutory tax regime
    contemplates that the two governmental units had differing obligations, see MCL
    211.44(1); MCL 211.78a, and potentially conflicting interests if the county was unable to
    collect delinquent taxes for which it had previously reimbursed the township from its
    delinquent tax revolving fund, see MCL 211.87b.
    2
    Because the question of privity is dispositive, we decline to address the other
    issues raised by the parties on appeal. 1
    VIVIANO, J., did not participate because he presided over this case in the circuit
    court.
    1
    Although we do not reach the issue, we question whether the Michigan Tax Tribunal
    had the authority to compel the county to disobey the explicit statutory obligation
    requiring the county to assess the interest and fees. “A county property tax
    administration fee . . . and interest . . . computed from the date that the taxes originally
    became delinquent, shall be added to property returned as delinquent under this section.”
    MCL 211.78a(3) (emphasis added).
    I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the
    foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.
    November 26, 2014
    t1119
    Clerk
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 147384

Filed Date: 11/26/2014

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/27/2014