[PeterPrinciple]

In 2010, Geraldine Tyler, who was in her early 80s, vacated her condominium in Hennepin County, Minnesota, after a series of local events, including a nearby shooting, left her wanting a safer environment. She was ultimately unable to afford both her new rent and her condo’s property taxes, racking up a $2,300 overdue bill. Local officials added $13,000 in interest, penalties, and assorted fees. They then seized her home, sold it at auction for $40,000, and pocketed the remaining $25,000 surplus.

---

Now exactly why would she do this. Was she incompetent?

Seems to me I have seen this in the news before. Then there was also a charge of racism? Some distant relatives involved now because they can smell some money.

There is more to this story.

[Alberta's Child]

I did some research on this case when it was first mentioned on FR a couple of days ago.

From what I could tell, the case emanates from a unique aspect of the foreclosure process under Minnesota law.

Under normal circumstances in most states, the property owner is entitled to keep any equity in the property that remains after a bank or tax authority seizes it in a foreclosure and pays off the expenses associated with seizing and selling it. In effect, the bank or government can't make a profit off the transfer.

Under Minnesota law, there are many points during the foreclosure process when the property owner can intervene on his or her behalf to remedy their default -- and they are even given an opportunity to pay off the debt under a 5 or 10 year period. At a specific point in the process in Minnesota -- after the debtor has refused to avail herself of any of these remedies -- it ceases to be a "foreclosure" and effectively becomes a property abandonment process. The Minnesota statutes governing the abandonment process date back to the 1880s when it was apparently common for farmers to abandon their Minnesota farms and move west to the Dakota territories and settle on new land given to them under the Homestead Act.

In this case, the Federal courts simply ruled that the foreclosure/abandonment process was governed by Minnesota law. Importantly, the courts ruled that the sale of the condo was not a violation of the "Takings Clause" for a clear legal/technical reason — in that the debtor no longer had any ownership claim on the property after they passed the specific point in the Minnesota process where it went from a "foreclosure" to an "abandonment."

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

There is more to this story.

Yes there is. It was posted here yesterday with some good analysis. The laws in Minnesota are not on her side. The Supreme court will likely not rule in her favor.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

Now exactly why would she do this.

She lived in a dangerous area and decided to move.

Was she incompetent?

You might remember what was going on in 2010 with property values. The condo would not sell at anywhere near it's later value.

Seems to me I have seen this in the news before.

Probably. It has been reported on in the past 13 years.

There is more to this story.

Yes.

Lots of greedy sobs in government decided to jack up property taxes as property was losing it's value. And people were losing their jobs.

This allowed Them to take property, sell it and keep the proceeds.

Not sure why anyone would think that was acceptable. Private lending companies can not do it. They have to hand over anything beyond what they were owed.

But government, well after all it should all go to them anyway. Right?