Posted on 05/04/2023 12:56:18 PM PDT by John Semmens
In Hennepin County, Minnesota, 80-year-old Geraldine Tyler fell $2,300 behind in paying her property taxes and an added $13,000 in interest, penalties, and assorted fees. Tyler couldn't afford to pay the accumulated amount. So, the County auctioned off her condo and got $40,000 for it. They did not return the excess over the amount debt owed to the county by Tyler. She is sued for the return of her remaining equity from that sale. This suit has now reached the US Supreme Court.
Neal Katyal, the attorney representing Hennepin County, justified keeping the residual amount after deducting the tax debt, saying that "historically, the authority to keep everything dates back to 1278 when the English Parliament's Statute of Gloucester ruled that when a vassal fails to provide enough wheat to his lord his lands escheat to the lord. Further, the US Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit Judge Steven Colloton ruled that in the absence of a state law explicitly recognizing the property interest in surplus proceeds from a tax foreclosure-sale, the government is free to take as much of the debtor's money as it wishes."
Christina Martin, the attorney representing Tyler, countered with "the county could have collected the debt without violating the Constitution by following the traditional common law rule still followed in most states and still followed in Minnesota in nearly every other debt collection circumstance by taking the property, selling it, paying the debts from the proceeds, and refunding the remainder to Ms. Tyler."
While Justices Elena Kagan, Paul Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, and Amy Coney Barrett all questioned the justice of confiscating the remaining equity of the debtor, Katyal warned that "reversing the previous judicial rulings in this case could seriously imperil the fiscal soundness of the state and local governments that depend on the profits from seized properties."
If you missed any of the other Semi-News/Semi-Satire posts you can find them at...
https://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,498162.0.html
“1. This is not England.”
The Magna Carter established estate equity rights and formed the basis that equity is a property right and cannot be taken without due process.
There were a couple of things about this case that struck me as unusual. For one thing, it seems ridiculous that someone would default on a $2,300 tax liability and give up her home. It also seemed to me that there was probably a good reason why she has never prevailed in any trial or appellate court in this case.
“If I remember the prior article I read on this subject, a key issue at hand is that the Minnesota law on this type of seizure has a number of points in the process where the debtor can intervene on her own behalf and keep the property … but this woman apparently failed to avail herself of any such opportunities.”
Nobody is arguing that the county cannot seize the property but is deeply embedded in common law that equity is an intangible property that must be returned tto that owner upon sale of the property.
The USSC is going to make 14 states unhappy.
“There were a couple of things about this case that struck me as unusual. For one thing, it seems ridiculous that someone would default on a $2,300 tax liability and give up her home.”
She was 86 when she moved out, scared to remain in the house.
“It also seemed to me that there was probably a good reason why she has never prevailed in any trial or appellate court in this case.”
They just dismissed the case based on failure to make a claim!
But she just walked away. Didn’t try to sell it, rent it out, put a family member in it,or even lease or donate to a local church or charity to use, nothing. I’ve walked away, but I at least followed the process, kept someone in the property, and availed myself to any legal remedy or process.
“But she just walked away.”
Even so, she is still entitled to her equity after sale.
Exactly as I stated, “ This is not England.”
“Exactly as I stated, “ This is not England.””
The Magna Carter is VERY England.
If I remember correctly, the courts ruled that by missing all of the opportunities to intervene in the forfeiture process, the debtor effectively had no standing to make a claim because she no longer held any title to the property or even had a mortgage obligation anymore.
“If I remember correctly, the courts ruled ...”
They didn’t rule. They dismissed the case.
“because she no longer held any title to the property or even had a mortgage obligation anymore.”
The title was forcibly taken from her. But equity cannot be taken without due process.
As to a mortgage I have read numerous articles and briefs and only one article mentions a mortgage. All others refer to her equity.
If she was underwater before the seizure due to a mortgage and tax debt she should get nothing even if the mortgage was cancelled on seizure.
OTOH, the law should not be cancelling the mortgage to benefit the government.
The trial court dismissed the case because the debtor lacked standing.
The appellate courts affirmed the dismissal.
I'm not a lawyer, but it sounds to me like this is somewhat similar to a plaintiff's case being dismissed because the statute of limitations had expired.
"You didn't file this lawsuit at any time during Steps 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 in the foreclosure/forfeiture proceedings, so you're out of luck."
Under Minnesota law she no longer held any title to the property or even had a TAX obligation anymore.
From my reading of the court decision, the Minnesota statute says she effectively forfeited the property in exchange for a cancelation of the tax obligation. It's not the court's problem that she didn't take into account the value of the property.
“Under Minnesota law she no longer held any title to the property or even had a TAX obligation anymore.”
That is not in question. What is in question is the constitutionality of the law that allows taking of her equity.
“Then there’s your “ruling.”
The trial court dismissed the case because the debtor lacked standing.”
Wrong on both accounts.
We will see. I wouldn’t be shocked to see Clarence Thomas side with the county government in this case.
“We will see. I wouldn’t be shocked to see Clarence Thomas side with the county government in this case.”
Why would he side with the unconstitutional taking of intangible property?
However, if she did have a mortgage that was cancelled this is a much more interesting case.
Am I missing something? This happened in Minnesota.
“Am I missing something? This happened in Minnesota.”
Yes. The history of our laws.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.