JOSEPH ALLEN V STANLEY A KACZMAREK
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
JOSEPH ALLEN,
UNPUBLISHED
December 15, 2000
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 217138
Macomb Circuit Court
LC No. 97-001087-CH
STANLEY A. KACZMAREK,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Saad, P.J., and White, and Hoeksta, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals as of right from the trial court’s opinion and order quieting title in
favor of plaintiff. Defendant owned a vacant parcel of property for many years, but the property
was sold a tax sale in 1993,to satisfy delinquent 1990 taxes. Plaintiff bought the property from
the state and brought an action to quiet title. Defendant argued that, because he had not received
notice of his redemption right, the redemption period had not expired and he was still able to
redeem the property by paying the delinquent taxes. We affirm.
Defendant initially argues that the trial court erred by finding that defendant’s wife was
his agent for purposes of receiving notice.1 However, the trial court did not base its ruling on a
conclusion that defendant’s wife was his agent for receiving notice, but simply observed that
defendant was unable to receive mail directly and his wife was authorized to receive mail for
him. The trial court’s legal conclusion was that the certified mailing of notice to defendant’s
address constituted adequate notice. Thus, defendant’s agency argument is misplaced.
Defendant asserts that the certified mail to his address was not adequate notice, because
he did not sign the return receipt and he did not receive actual notice. We disagree. A property
owner may redeem property by paying the delinquent taxes at any time before the first Tuesday
in November after title vests in the state. MCL 211.131c(1); MSA 7.190(1)(1). This redemption
period is further extended until all owners of the property have been notified of a hearing to
allow the owners to contest the tax sale. MCL 211.131e(1) and (2); MSA 7.190(3)(1) and (2).
1
Separate redemption notices were sent by certified mail to defendant and his wife at their
residential address. Defendant’s wife signed both return receipts.
-1-
The redemption period expires thirty days after the hearing. MCL 211.131e(3); MSA
7.190(3)(3). In this case, defendant’s redemption right expired on November 4, 1996, unless he
did not receive adequate notice of the hearing.
In Dow v Michigan, 396 Mich 192, 211; 240 NW2d 450 (1976), our Supreme Court
addressed the notice that must be given to property owners before extinguishing their redemption
right. Rejecting the adequacy of service by publication, the Court explained:
Personal service is not required. Notice by mail is adequate. Mailed
notice must be directed to an address reasonably calculated to reach the person
entitled to notice. Mailing should be by registered or certified mail, return receipt
requested, both because of the greater care in delivery and because of the record of
mailing and receipt or non-receipt provided. Such would be the efforts one
desirous of actually informing another might reasonably employ. If the state
exerts reasonable efforts, then failure to effectuate actual notice would not
preclude foreclosure of the statutory lien and indefeasible vesting of title on
expiration of the redemption period.
In this case, defendant was sent, by certified mail, notice of his redemption right and of
the hearing to contest the tax sale. The certified mail was addressed to defendant at his
residential address, and defendant’s wife signed to acknowledge receipt of the notice. This
constituted mailing reasonably calculated to reach defendant under Dow. Further, the failure to
effectuate actual notice does not preclude vesting of title in plaintiff, because the Department of
Treasury exerted reasonable efforts to notify defendant of the hearing and his redemption right.
This conclusion is supported by the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Smith v Cliffs on
the Bay Condominium Ass’n, 463 Mich 420; 617 NW2d 536 (2000). In Smith, notice of the
hearing and redemption right under MCL 211.131e; MSA 7.190(3) was sent to the landowner’s
last known corporate address by certified mail, but was returned as undeliverable. The
landowner argued that the Department of Treasury should have attempted to ascertain its current
address once the Department became aware that the notice was not delivered. The Court of
Appeals agreed. Supreme Court rejected this argument and held that compliance with the notice
procedures set forth in the General Property Tax Act, MCL 211.1 et seq.; MSA 7.1 et seq.,
satisfied due process. Id. at 428-429. The Court noted that the statute generally provides for
mailed notice to the owner at the owner’s last known address. Id. at 429. See, e.g., MCL
211.61a(2); MSA 7.106(2) (“The county treasurer shall mail the notice by first-class mail,
address correction requested, to each person, directed to his or her last known post office address
with postage fully prepaid.”). The Court held that even though one of the mailings was returned
as undeliverable, the state did not have an obligation to investigate the owner’s new address. Id.
Likewise, in the instant case, notice was sent by certified mail to the owner’s last known
address. In Smith, the notice was returned as undeliverable, and the Court held that adequate
notice of the redemption right was given. In the instant case, the notice was received at the
appropriate address, as evidenced by defendant’s wife’s signature on the return receipt. Under
Smith, if the return receipt indicated that the notice of hearing was not received, defendant would
nonetheless be deemed to have received adequate notice. Thus, where the receipt indicated that
the notice of hearing was received at defendant’s address, we must conclude that defendant
-2-
received adequate notice. The fact that defendant did not sign the receipt did not impose a duty
on the state to attempt again to effectuate notice.
Thus, although plaintiff did not show that defendant received actual notice of his
redemption right, plaintiff did show that defendant received adequate notice. Defendant was sent
notice by certified mail to his residential address. This constituted notice reasonably calculated
to effect actual notice under Dow and Smith and the statute. Because defendant received
adequate notice of his redemption right, the redemption period expired on November 4, 1996,
and the trial court did not err in quieting title in favor of plaintiff.
Affirmed.
/s/ Henry William Saad
/s/ Helene N. White
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
-3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.