Plaintiffs Fadi Fakhreddine and Old Joy Investment Company owned real estate in Wayne County, Michigan, but failed to pay their property taxes. Under Michigan law, the county treasurer petitioned for foreclosure, and the state court entered judgments vesting absolute title to the properties in the treasurer. The treasurer then sold Fakhreddine's property at auction for more than the tax debt but retained the surplus. Similarly, Old Joy's property was sold to the county and then to a developer for more than the delinquency amount, with no surplus returned to the owners. The plaintiffs sued the treasurer in his official capacity, alleging violations of the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause and state conversion laws. The district court initially dismissed the case, but the Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded, directing the lower court to apply the precedent set in Hall v. Meisner. On remand, the district court dismissed the claims again, this time ruling that the statute of limitations barred the federal takings and state conversion claims. The plaintiffs appealed, and the Sixth Circuit addressed the sovereign immunity defense raised by the treasurer.
The Sixth Circuit reviewed the question of sovereign immunity de novo. The court applied the principle that when a county official commits an alleged constitutional violation by complying with state mandates that afford no discretion, the official acts as an arm of the State and is immune from suit. The court found that Michigan law required the treasurer to petition for foreclosure once properties were forfeited and to sell them at auction if the state or local government did not purchase them. Furthermore, Michigan law did not allow the treasurer to return surplus proceeds to the plaintiffs. Because the treasurer had no control over the decision to foreclose and his subsequent actions were compelled by state statute, he was entitled to sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. The court noted that it had previously held the treasurer entitled to immunity in similar circumstances in Bowles v. Sabree. Consequently, the court affirmed the dismissal on this ground, which differed from the district court's reliance on the statute of limitations.
The decision affirms the dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims but modifies the lower court's judgment to reflect a dismissal without prejudice rather than with prejudice. This change is significant because a dismissal based on lack of jurisdiction due to sovereign immunity generally does not bar the plaintiffs from re-filing if they can sue a different defendant or if the legal landscape changes. The ruling clarifies that county treasurers in Michigan acting strictly under the General Property Tax Act are immune from takings and conversion suits, shifting the focus of such litigation to whether the state itself or other actors can be held liable.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download