-2-
Arenac County acquired several properties via tax foreclosure proceedings and the
Treasurer was appointed as the foreclosing governmental unit (“FGU”). On August 26, 2010,
Stawowy held an auction to sell off various properties at the minimum bid (unpaid taxes plus
foreclosure costs and fees); however, there were no bids on many of the properties. Afterward,
the properties were bundled with other parcels and offered for sale as two groups – Lot 177 and
Lot 198. The sale book distributed at the auction site stated that before bidding on Lot 177, a
“prospective buyer must submit a plan to the County Treasurer’s office by noon on October 29
th
,
2010 to address abatement issues for approval. No deeds will be issued until these terms are
completed.” For Lot 198, the sale book stated that in order to bid “the prospective purchaser
must submit a plan to the County Treasurer’s office by noon on October 29
th
, 2010 to address
tank removal and clean up. Clean up is required within 30 days of auction, and a $500,000.00
performance bond must be posted. No deed will be issued prior to meeting this stipulation.”
Similarly, in the auction notice for Lot 177, Stawowy included the following pre-bidding
qualification requirement for the auction: “Before bidding on this bundle of properties, the
prospective buyer must submit a plan to the County Treasurer’s Office by noon on October 29,
2010 to address abatement issues for approval. No deeds will be issued until these terms are
completed.”
Plaintiffs wished to bid on Lot 177. Though they were only interested in two of the 25
properties contained in Lot 177, they were willing “to take the bad with the good.” Plaintiffs
timely submitted a bid and accompanying plan for Lot 177 on October 29, 2010. Upon receipt
of plaintiffs’ bid and abatement plan, Stawowy also prepared and filed a bid and plan on behalf
of the Land Bank. He then reviewed both plans and sought advice from Saginaw County
Treasurer Marvin Hare, whom Stawowy believed to have more experience with selling tax
foreclosed property. After consulting with Hare, Stawowy determined that neither submission,
including his own, adequately addressed the abatement issues and rejected both plans.
Accordingly, although the properties were put up for auction on October 30, 2010, they were not
sold as there were no “qualified bidders.” Thereafter, seven of the parcels were unbundled and
individually transferred to the respective local municipalities in which the parcels were located.
The remaining 20 parcels ultimately remained with the county and under the Treasurer’s control.
Plaintiffs filed a complaint, arguing that Stawowy acted to insulate the Land Bank from a
competitive bid. Plaintiffs alleged that the Land Bank lacked the assets to make a competitive
bid and that Stawowy used no criteria to assess plaintiffs’ plan and gave no reasons for rejecting
the plan. Plaintiffs claimed that they were entitled to bid on the disputed property because they
were able and willing to do so. Therefore, plaintiffs asked the court to either grant them title to
the disputed property or hold a new auction. Plaintiffs filed a notice of lis pendens against part
of Lot 177 prior to Stawowy transferring some of the lots by quit claim deed to local
municipalities.
Through a Freedom of Information Act request, plaintiffs uncovered correspondence
between Stawowy and Marty Spaulding, the auctioneer, wherein Spaulding instructed Stawowy
on how to structure a noncompetitive auction to ensure that the Land Bank – not the plaintiffs –
received the properties. In relevant part, Spaulding instructed Stawowy:
You bundle all/some of your parcels. We deem them a ‘nuisance’ and require any
prospective bidder . . . to submit a proposal for abatement of the nuisance . . . .