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
Meaningful thar the USSC decided to take this case.
1. This is not England.
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."
Really? Is that like I caught you with your pants down and had my way rule.....
"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."
and that’s the problem, Government's are allowed to the extra money.
This has been posted several times. The woman was in violation of Minnesota law. Period. She did not do her due diligence when she was in arrears. The state applied the law and she lost her home.
Bump
Not applicable. The Statue of Gloucester refers to feudal tenants. Americans are not feudal tenants of the state. They own their property as a fee simple, ,i.e., they have absolute ownership of their property.
Exactly. Under Minnesota law this process was not a tax foreclosure. It was a property abandonment, which makes a big difference when it comes to establishing the debtor’s legal claim to any equity in the property.
“This has been posted several times. The woman was in violation of Minnesota law. Period. She did not do her due diligence when she was in arrears. The state applied the law and she lost her home.”
But is the law constitutional?
This is theft. Is there not an 8th Amendment anymore?
IMO this is reason for overthrow of the gov. It was for the founders, after all.
“Exactly. Under Minnesota law this process was not a tax foreclosure. It was a property abandonment, which makes a big difference when it comes to establishing the debtor’s legal claim to any equity in the property.”
Can you cite a source?
I had one previously. I can track it down later. You can probably find it easily — it was the Federal appellate court (I think it was the Eighth Circuit?) ruling that upheld the seizure.
“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.”
Of course they didn’t. They are criminals like all politicians and bureaucrats.
“I had one previously. I can track it down later. You can probably find it easily — it was the Federal appellate court (I think it was the Eighth Circuit?) ruling that upheld the seizure.”
The CC abandonment as an argument but nowhere did they state that the county did not use the tax foreclosure to seize the property.
The downstream effect here is that if the state cannot seize your equity when you default on taxes then a lender cannot seize your equity when you default on a mortgage.
So look for the banks and the Fed to weigh in on this.
“The woman was in violation of Minnesota law. Period.”
Then the law is an ass.
The defendents argued that she abandoned the property but never stated that the property was taken under abandonment statues.
From my reading if the owner makes a claim on the sale proceeds they are entitled to their equity.
“The downstream effect here is that if the state cannot seize your equity when you default on taxes then a lender cannot seize your equity when you default on a mortgage.”
Not the issue here. The issue is returning equity after the sale.
“Then the law is an ass.”
Absolutely! In older times Minnesota law required return of equity and this was the position of the Minnesota Supreme Court in several cases.
Over the years Minnesota enacted laws legalizing the taking.
Edit: From my reading if the owner of abandoned property makes a claim on the sale proceeds they are entitled to their equity.
If you can be held liable for a deficiency, then you are also eligible for a return of equity in excess of the debt
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.