CITY OF DETROIT V 132 TEMPLE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
CITY OF DETROIT,
UNPUBLISHED
October 19, 2001
Plaintiff-Appellee,
V
No. 220591
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 98-825055-CH
2942 CASS and CASS PARK, INC.,
Defendants-Appellants.
CITY OF DETROIT,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
V
No. 220592
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 98-825058-CH
138 TEMPLE, CASS PARK, INC., JACK
HAGOPIAN and PEGGY P. HAGOPIAN,
Defendants-Appellants.
CITY OF DETROIT,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
V
No. 220593
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 98-825060-CH
132 TEMPLE, CASS PARK, INC., JACK
HAGOPIAN and PEGGY P. HAGOPIAN,
Defendants-Appellants.
Before: Bandstra, C.J., and White and Collins, JJ.
WHITE, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part).
-1-
I concur in the majority’s determination that plaintiff City of Detroit was entitled to
foreclose on the liens for taxes owed for 1988 through 1995. I respectfully dissent, however,
from the majority’s conclusion that the tax deed extinguished plaintiff’s right to collect the presale taxes.
In Hoffman v Otto, 277 Mich 437; 269 NW 225 (1936), and Detroit v Sitter, 288 Mich
505; 285 NW 40 (1939), the Supreme Court rejected arguments that a tax sale deed extinguished
the City of Detroit’s tax liens for taxes predating the state tax deed. In Hoffman, at the time of
the tax deed, the City of Detroit had unpaid levies for taxes and special assessments for years
preceding and subsequent to the deed. The city had apparently bid in the property for city taxes
under the city charter. The plaintiff, who had received the property from the tax purchaser by
quitclaim deed, contended that the tax deed and the city’s failure to redeem its interest in the
property after notice, destroyed the levies and the city’s interest in the property for the years
preceding the deed. The Hoffman Court rejected that contention, concluding that the city was
not obliged to redeem its interest to preserve its rights as against the state tax deed.
In Sitter, supra, the defendant purchased property at a state and county tax sale. At the
time, there were unpaid city property taxes and assessments. The city had bid in the taxes, but
had not foreclosed. The defendant sent notice, pursuant to the statute, that the city could redeem
the property from the state and county tax sale and that failure to redeem would discharge the
city’s unpaid tax and assessment lien. Relying on Hoffman, and rejecting the argument that a
recent amendment to the statute made clear that the city was among those entities that must
preserve its interest by redemption, the Court concluded that the city’s tax lien interest survived
the tax deed.
The Hoffman Court had said:
The state, undoubtedly, could, by appropriate legislation, do the very thing
claimed by plaintiff; but such legislation would have to be plainly expressed and
cannot be accomplished by construction or implication.
Our attention is not called to any such plainly expressed legislation. [277 Mich at
440].
This language was quoted by the Sitter Court. Sitter, supra at 508.
I acknowledge that the language relied on by defendants and the majority in the instant
cases was not mentioned in either Hoffman or Sitter. Nevertheless, comparable statutory
provisions were in effect at all relevant times. 1915 CL § 4069; 1929 CL § 3464. Under the
circumstances that Hoffman and Sitter have not been repudiated, no case cited by defendants
involves the issue whether City of Detroit taxes that are not sold as part of the county tax sale are
extinguished by the tax deed, and the Legislature has not signaled its disapproval of Sitter and
Hoffman, I would affirm.
/s/ Helene N. White
-2-
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.