Quote Quoting Taxing Matters
View Post
The problem here as I see it is that your defendant is not A now. It is B, ......
I was addressing the statement that budwad made:

Quote Quoting budwad
View Post
I gave you my opinion that your SOL runs for 15 years from the date that the state transferred the land to your buyer A.
It is relevant that the correct SOL be ascertained because if the SOL for purchaser "A" actually was 15 years to begin with, then my entire claim would be moot and void. Fortunately, the correct SOL for purchaser "A" 'is' 10 years, not 15.

Quote Quoting Taxing Matters
View Post
The problem with this is that she is NOT your attorney...
Again, I was providing a basis for the position that the SOL is 10 years for tax sale properties. Although, regarding 'that' aspect, I would take her opinion of this relevant statute over any attorney in the tri-county area. (Cumulatively, she and the rest of the CC have listed, petitioned, litigated between 100,000 and 200,000 tax delinquent properties in just the last 20 years. I don't know how long she worked for CC before that.) She and her staff eat, breathe, sleep, and have nightmares about every aspect of the General Property Tax Act and the relevant statutes. I'm very confident in her authority as it pertains to at least those aspects of tax foreclosed properties in Michigan.

Quote Quoting Taxing Matters
View Post
and, moreover, it does not sound like she was addressing directly the situation of what SOL applies when the purchaser at a tax sale then turns around and conveys the property to someone else.
Correct, of course no she wasn't addressing the SOL issue (nor giving legal advice) for the same reason that neither you nor I could address that aspect: Because it doesn't appear that this exact set of circumstances has been litigated before in this state.* Again, I have not done a deep dive on this phase of this matter yet; hell, I haven't spent 'any' real time on the legal aspects of this matter yet. The 10 year SOL only just recently expired, and to be honest I am giving a grace period for the reason that this whole pandemic and state ordered moratorium on evictions from April thru July could be an offset for a defendant in a case like this; something that defendant could use to his advantage.

Might a judge be sympathetic to a defendant who didn't bring an action to recover possession of his property.... for the reason that the state told him that he was not allowed to bring any actions (evictions) to recover his property during this time period? Might a sympathetic judge grant an extra couple of months for defendant to "get it together"?

Perhaps; and perhaps.

*NOTE: Although as I stated earlier:
A) The courts can be erratic and inconsistent in their rulings and jurisprudence;
B) That said, it is not an ambiguous concept under the law: That when you purchase a property, you do not inherit, gain, accrue, receive, benefit, or acquire any rights, interests or benefits that did not already exist in the property at the time that you bought the property. That is a fundamental concept. And because there is so much case law and precedent to support that fundamental concept, I think it would be my strongest position to adopt in the long shot event that this matter ever did make it that far up the chain (or if it ever even makes it to step one: the circuit court).

Because the legal interest of purchaser "A" in the property was never perfected - in essence never completed - the 'status' of the property never changed. It was still a tax-sale acquired property, still bound by the rules, binders, covenants, devices, terms, conditions, restrictions, and statutory provisions as the original purchase. As stated earlier, otherwise everybody could use that "transfer to someone else" loophole (and yes, it's been tried exhaustively throughout history) to skirt the laws. The courts are acutely aware of tactics.

* If a property is in foreclosure, then just because "A" sells to "B" does not change the status of the property to 'not in foreclosure.
* If a property has liens, then just because "A" sells to "B" does not change the status of the property to 'no liens'.
* If a property has had an adverse possessor, then just because "A" sells to "B" at year 14 does not change the status of the property to 'unencumbered'.
* And if the property has never gained possession by someone "claiming" ownership nor ever survived a legal challenge in court as such during such an action, then just because "A" sells to "B" does not change the status of the property to 'valid', 'perfected', 'completed', or 'no longer bound by the terms and conditions'.

(FYI, it should also be noted that several other defects exist as it pertains to purchaser "A" - one example being that by policy of the county, it was a violation of the terms and conditions of sale to "sell, convey or transfer [the property] unless all taxes are paid in full" during the first 2 years. The taxes were delinquent; he did sell to purchaser "B" anyway. etc. By virtue of that defect, and a few others, 'unclean hands' could be argued to attempt to establish that defendant cannot bring a valid defense of his claims.

But, yes... I come here first to get some challenges. Then, that can help put me in the frame of mind of which holes I might need to plug - and I can get to work plugging.

I do appreciate all of the angles and input.

I'd have to ask