Detroit Mayor Mike Duggan’s renewed push to clean up the city and its well-documented inventory of abandoned and/or blighted property has led to many of those properties changing hands through tax foreclosure, sale to adjacent landowners, or conveyance to the Detroit Land Bank. The resulting buffet table of cheap residential properties offered for sale has attracted a swarm of investors not just from the immediate area, but from around the world.
While most experts agree that outside investment will help revitalize Detroit, at least in the short term, it has also led to plenty of real estate in the city coming under new ownership, often without the former owner’s consent (e.g., tax foreclosure). In general, the foreclosure process in Michigan is strictly defined by statute, as is the process for recovering actual possession of the property in question using the Summary Proceedings Act (SPA). An issue I often encountered in practice was how a purchaser at a tax foreclosure sale should proceed when a property is abandoned. In particular, these clients were either concerned about the immediate security of the property or just wished to avoid the cost and time associated with obtaining a writ of restitution via the SPA.
The issue appears to be one of risk versus cost. Obviously the purchasers who bought an empty grass lot have virtually no risk of the former owner’s trying to assert that they were improperly dispossessed of their land as a result of the new owner’s failure to follow the requirements of the SPA. At the opposite end of the spectrum is the family of six who have owned and occupied the property for the last 30 years and have no intent of leaving the property until the court officer removes them. Every other such situation falls somewhere in between. For instance, a client who is racing to secure a property and turn off the water before the pipes freeze and burst may decide that it is worth the risk of drilling the locks to gain access even though the former owner left behind a couch. An even more complex situation arises where a purchaser bought 20 properties at the auction and needs to secure them quickly before each is stripped of its copper and steel, and each property has some amount of personal property inside. There is not really a clear answer in these types of situations. Taking action can expose your client to treble damages under the Forcible Entry and Detainer Act; not taking action can expose your client to property damage. For more information about the Forcible Entry and Detainer Act, take a look at chapter 2.2 of Michigan Lease Drafting and Landlord-Tenant Law. For an examination of the Summary Proceedings Act, see chapter 6 of Michigan Lease Drafting and Landlord-Tenant Law.