Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

Andrew Meisner, Oakland County Treasurer, et al. v. Marion Sinclair

Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, No. 22-1264 · judgment December 29, 2022


Certiorari denied · October 2, 2023
Pre-decision estimate: 15% cert probability (95% interval 10%–22%)

Before the decision, about 3.6× the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for counsel who has won certiorari before, a petition filed soon after the judgment below, and a circuit split argued in the petition.

Question presented

Under Michigan’s General Property Tax Act (GPTA), a local taxing authority may foreclose on a property for nonpayment of taxes after a nearly threeyear process that includes ample notice and multiple chances for the owner to pay the delinquent taxes. In Rafaeli, LLC v. Oakland County, 952 N.W.2d 434 (Mich. 2020), the Michigan Supreme Court held that, if the taxing authority sells tax-foreclosed property at auction for more than the taxes owed, the authority’s keeping of the surplus is a taking under the Michigan Constitution’s Takings Clause. Here, Petitioner Oakland County did not sell Respondent’s tax-foreclosed property because a municipal government exercised its statutory right to acquire the property in exchange for paying the tax delinquency. So there was no surplus. In Rafaeli, the Michigan Supreme Court determined that a taking only arises when surplus proceeds are not paid to the former owner, so the district court here appropriately dismissed. But the Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that a taking under the federal Takings Clause occurs the moment a Michigan taxing authority forecloses and takes “absolute title” to a delinquent taxpayer’s property because the authority has taken the owner’s “equitable title.” This makes Michigan’s right-of-firstrefusal-without-a-sale approach unconstitutional under federal law. The question presented is substantively the same one this Court is already considering in Tyler v. Hennepin County, No. 22-166: 1. Whether foreclosing on a home for the nonpayment of taxes constitutes a violation of the federal Takings Clause whenever the home is worth more than the tax delinquency.

Counsel of record

For petitioner
John J. Bursch
Bursch Law PLLC

For respondent
Mark Louis McAlpine
McAlpine PC

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 2 conferences

Proceedings

  1. Oct 02 2023
    Petition DENIED.
  2. Jun 21 2023
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/26/2023.
  3. Jun 07 2023
    Brief of respondent Marion Sinclair in opposition filed.
  4. May 09 2023
    Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including July 24, 2023.
  5. May 05 2023
    Motion to extend the time to file a response from May 25, 2023 to July 24, 2023, submitted to The Clerk.
  6. Apr 25 2023
    Response Requested. (Due May 25, 2023)
  7. Apr 19 2023
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/11/2023.
  8. Apr 13 2023
    Waiver of right of respondent Marion Sinclair to respond filed.
  9. Mar 14 2023
    Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 17, 2023)