Case: Johanna McGee, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Jacqueline McGee, et al. v. Alger County Treasurer, et al., No. 25-203
Lower Court: Michigan
Docketed: 2025-08-19
Status: Denied
Question Presented: When government takes and sells private property to collect a tax debt, it must return the surplus proceeds from the sale to the former property owner as just compensation. Tyler v. Hennepin Cnty., 598 U.S. 631 (2023). Michigan continues to evade that categorical duty. It established a complicated claims process purporting to offer owners an opportunity to claim their funds, Mich. Comp. Laws § 211.78t, yet in approximately 95% of cases, the tax debtors cannot successfully navigate it. When that ...
On March 2, 2026, the Supreme Court denied rehearing in McGee v. Alger County Treasurer, following an initial denial on January 12. The docket shows the petition was distributed for conference four times before denial, suggesting the Court gave the questions careful attention before declining to intervene. Petitioner Christina Marie Martin argued on behalf of the estate that Michigan’s post-Tyler claims process is a procedural obstacle course that effectively allows the government to retain surplus equity in approximately 95% of cases.
The backdrop is the Court’s 2023 decision in Tyler v. Hennepin County, which held that the government must return surplus proceeds when it sells property to satisfy a tax debt. Michigan responded by enacting Mich. Comp. Laws § 211.78t, a claims procedure ostensibly designed to comply with Tyler. Petitioners contended the process is so burdensome that it functions as a forfeiture mechanism in practice, and that courts upholding it rely on Nelson v. City of New York, 352 U.S. 103 (1956), which suggests that the mere existence of a recovery procedure forecloses a takings claim.
The legal questions were pointed: does Michigan’s process violate the Takings and Due Process Clauses, and should Nelson be overruled to the extent it shields such procedures? Four amicus briefs were filed, reflecting genuine interest from property-rights organizations. The repeated conferencing indicates the justices considered the petition seriously.
The practical stakes are real. As noted in Law360’s coverage, four other states have enacted similar claims frameworks. Without further guidance from the Court, those regimes will continue operating under the shelter of Nelson, and the question of what procedural adequacy requires under Tyler remains open for future litigation.