Michigan county can keep $21,810 windfall after woman's claim lands a day late

Audio By Carbonatix

DETROIT (AP) — A woman has lost a legal tangle involving the calendar, mailboxes and a foreclosed house, leaving a Michigan county with a $21,810 windfall.

The state Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court and ruled in favor of Iron County in a lawsuit over cash remaining from the sale of a property that was saddled with unpaid taxes.

There is no dispute that Lillian Joseph could pursue the surplus money. Her claim was delivered at 8:17 a.m. on deadline day, July 1, 2021, but the envelope wasn't handled by the treasurer's office until the next day.

Iron County government has more than 20 office suites, and each has its own locked mailbox. Joseph's envelope didn't list suite 12 so it didn't immediately land with the treasurer on July 1.

“The mailroom is not the treasurer’s office,” attorney Laurie Longo, representing the county, said during arguments earlier this summer.

Joseph paid $26 to have her claim sent as two-day “priority mail,” not certified mail, and did not check a box seeking confirmation that the letter was delivered, a requirement under Michigan law, the appeals court said.

“The mailing requirement does not require any particular legal knowledge, nor is the instruction difficult for the average citizen to follow,” the court said in a 3-0 opinion Thursday, noting that Joseph had worked with a lawyer on the claim.

During the July hearing, a judge asked if Joseph still had substantially complied with the process. No, said Longo.

County treasurers are "in this precarious position of dealing with the public every day," Longo said. “Every single day somebody comes to them with any variety of situations where they're asking, ‘Oh, can’t we just do this? Can't we just push it a little bit here?' ... This statute is very precise."

An email seeking comment from Joseph's attorney, Don Visser, wasn't immediately answered Friday. In an earlier court filing, he said she shouldn't be penalized.

“Enforcing a strict procedural requirement would violate the Supreme Court’s longstanding policy of not barring citizen claims against the government on technicalities,” Visser said.

___

Follow Ed White at https://twitter.com/edwritez