Sidun v. Wayne County Treasurer (2008)
Citation: 481 Mich. 503; 751 N.W.2d 453 (2008) · Court: Michigan Supreme Court, Docket No. 131905 · Argued March 5, 2008 · Decided July 2, 2008
The leading michigan decision applying jones-v-flowers to General Property Tax Act (GPTA) foreclosures: when a treasurer’s mailed notice of tax-foreclosure proceedings is returned undeliverable, the treasurer must take additional reasonable follow-up steps before extinguishing the owner’s interest, or the foreclosure violates due process.
Facts
The plaintiff’s mother, Helen Krist, owned a two-family dwelling in Hamtramck. In 1979 Krist executed a quitclaim deed conveying the property to herself and the plaintiff, Stella Sidun, as joint tenants, listing Warren and Birmingham, Michigan addresses. The Wayne County Treasurer sent two notices of tax delinquency by first-class mail, and a notice by certified mail, to Krist at the Warren address; the certified letter came back undeliverable. When the Treasurer sent notice of the show-cause and foreclosure hearings by certified mail to both Krist and Sidun at the Warren address in December 2002, that letter was also returned undeliverable. The Treasurer did not take further steps to locate the joint tenant, and the property was foreclosed.
Holding
Because the Treasurer failed to employ reasonable follow-up measures to notify the plaintiff after the certified mail was returned, the plaintiff’s due-process rights were violated. Notice that the government knows or has reason to know did not reach an interested party — here, a joint tenant whose interest was reasonably ascertainable — is constitutionally inadequate unless the government takes additional reasonable steps that are practical under the circumstances.
Reasoning
- The Court applied Mullane’s “reasonably calculated” standard (mullane-v-central-hanover) and Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (2006) (jones-v-flowers), which holds that returned mail triggers a duty to take additional reasonable steps if practical.
- A joint tenant has a distinct, recorded property interest; the Treasurer’s records and the recorded deed made the plaintiff’s interest reasonably ascertainable, so the government could not rely on a single returned mailing as adequate notice to her.
- Practical follow-up measures — such as posting, resending to an alternative known address, or other reasonable inquiry — were available and were not undertaken, rendering the foreclosure constitutionally defective as to the plaintiff.
Practical impact
- For investors / operators: A Michigan GPTA tax-foreclosure judgment can be challenged where the treasurer received returned mail and did nothing more. Title taken through such a foreclosure carries a latent due-process defect that a former co-owner can raise. Confirm the foreclosing unit documented additional notice steps whenever certified mail bounced.
- For former owners / co-owners: If you held a recorded interest (including as a joint tenant) and the treasurer’s notice was returned undelivered without any follow-up, Sidun supports a due-process challenge to the foreclosure.
Good-law status
Still good law as of last_verified 2026-06-02. A 2008 Michigan Supreme Court
decision; it sits alongside rafaeli-v-oakland-county-2020 (surplus equity) as a
pillar of Michigan tax-foreclosure constitutional doctrine and was not overruled in
retrieval.
Source
- CourtListener (Michigan Supreme Court opinion, 481 Mich. 503; 751 N.W.2d 453): https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/839205/sidun-v-wayne-county-treasurer/
Why it matters
Sidun is Michigan’s Jones v. Flowers — the state-supreme-court rule that returned tax-foreclosure mail obligates the treasurer to do more, and the front-line attack on a Michigan tax title where notice failed.
Related
- michigan — GPTA foreclosure, notice, and surplus.
- jones-v-flowers — the federal rule on returned mail that Sidun applies.
- mullane-v-central-hanover — the underlying “reasonably calculated” standard.
- rafaeli-v-oakland-county-2020 — Michigan surplus-equity takings.
Legal information, not legal advice. This page summarizes a court decision for educational purposes and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Verify against the primary opinion and consult a licensed attorney in the relevant jurisdiction before acting. Last verified 2026-06-02.