Supreme Court rules in favor of 94-year-old woman who got nothing when county took her condo

[brooklynite]

Source: Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — A unanimous Supreme Court on Thursday gave a 94-year-old Minneapolis woman a new chance to recoup some money after the county kept the entire $40,000 when it sold her condominium over a small unpaid tax bill.

The justices ruled that Hennepin County, Minnesota violated the constitutional rights of the woman, Geraldine Tyler, by taking her property without paying “just compensation.”

“The County had the power to sell Tyler’s home to recover the unpaid property taxes. But it could not use the toehold of the tax debt to confiscate more property than was due,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court.

Tyler, who now lives in an apartment building for older people, owed $2,300 in unpaid taxes, plus interest and penalties totalling $15,000, when the county took title to the one-bedroom apartment in 2015. The county said she did nothing to hold onto her one-time residence. The apartment sold the next year.

Read more: https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-unpaid-taxes-d8a47701c2ff35436c7f96dad2e94f27

[BlueWaveNeverEnd]

1. good

[Joinfortmill]

2. A good thing just happened.

[flying_wahini]

3. Better late than never but this shit just chaps my ass bad.

[oldsoftie]

4. A GREAT decision & unanimous. Other local govts should take note.

I cant STAND things like this.
Next up do cash seizure when there are no criminal charges.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

10. +1000 (nt)

[yaesu]

5. So, will this finally put an end to states stealing people's homes

In states like where I live you never truly own a home because you must pay the property tax extortion or else you get the boot.

[SouthernDem4ever]

6. You'll still get the boot

but you might also get the difference left over when it is sold and the taxes are deducted.

[Polybius]

9. Imagine buying a TV and having to pay the tax every year until you sell it

Probably tax reaks unconstitutional, and may one day be struck down.

[yaesu]

11. Lits hope, plus corporations get huge prop tax breaks and the increase the prop

Tax for us to make up for it.

[SouthernDem4ever]

17. That has always been a problem - the corps hold communities hostage

They say, either no taxes or no jobs.

[oldsoftie]

14. How do you propose cities & counties fund themselves without prop taxes?

We could use sales taxes, but then everyone whines about it being "regressive"
Local income taxes are too easy to avoid.
There are NO states that dont have property taxes.

[Polybius]

22. Not saying you're wrong

Just saying it might be unconstitutional.

[Justice]

21. doubtful.

[ripcord]

24. So you don't want sewers or other local services property taxes provide?

[Polybius]

25. I'm just speaking of its constitutionality

There are other ways to get money.

[Deminpenn]

26. The penalties and interest were ridiculous

15,000-2,300 = 12,700 in penalties and interest.

[flvegan]

7. Proper finding, however, here's some frightening stuff, if true:

"Minnesota is among roughly a dozen states and the District of Columbia that allow local jurisdictions to keep the excess money, according to the Pacific Legal Foundation, a not-for-profit public interest law firm focused on property rights that represented Tyler at the Supreme Court.

The other states are: Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Oregon and South Dakota, the group said."

Unjust enrichment, anyone?

My state, land of the stupid, at least gets this right (tax certificates and tax deeds sales). Do better.

[yaesu]

12. Michigan also keeps all the loot. Nt

[Justice]

20. This is correct. And many cities/towns sell tax liens to private for-profit investors

The for-profit companies go after delinquent taxpayers and recover lost revenue.

Investors can collect big % interest from homeowners whose titles were sold off.

If those property owners fail to pay back the debt, investors can foreclose.

The liens might be for property taxes but can also be for unpaid water or sewer bills (much smaller amounts).

The for profit companies buying the tax liens do it because they are making money.

[ToxMarz]

8. It would also be nice if they did something about how

$2,300 in unpaid taxes, plus interest and penalties becomes a $15,000 bill.

[FBaggins]

15. I'm not as concerned about that

It seems excessive. But part of that is because the home's value was so low.

Counties incur significant expense in the process of foreclosing on and auctioning off these properties. The delinquent taxpayer should bear those expenses - as well as a proportional sharing of the costs of running the department (or subcontracting it out).

The great part of this ruling isn't just that Geraldine Tyler (and others like her) will get what was stolen from them... it's that the counties will lose the incentive to do this in the first place (possibly encouraging them to help struggling homeowners stay in their homes).

I suspect that the ruling will cause a bunch of counties to start getting claims for refunds of what was stolen. I wonder whether there will be a scorecard of the worst offenders.

[sindri]

13. the county is not making money on these things

It still costs taxpayers more to demolish, repair, pay for staff, etc. than they take for these situations. If they can't do this now, they will need to find a way to cover costs of taking care of neglected properties like this. She could have sold but she didn't. Other situations often require expensive demolition and removal of debris and the proceeds for selling properties cover the cost.

[Crepuscular]

16. ...

This was the right decision and this precedent may protect others in the future but Ms. Tyler won't benefit from it, in all likelihood.

In addition to the $15,000 that she owed for back taxes, it appears that she also had a $49,000 mortgage and owed $12,000 in unpaid HOA fees, which easily exceeded the market value of her property. That is why Hennipin County argued that she effectively abandoned the property when she walked away from it and stopped paying those outstanding debts.

I suspect that most of the time that a property is taken over for back taxes, the owner has little or no equity in the property, which is why they don't simply sell it, pay off their debts and keep any equity. It's a major pain for the government to have to take over an abandoned property and there is significant expense involved. In this case, the mortgage holder decided to write off the mortgage instead of foreclosing, since they were unlikely to recoup enough of their investment to make it worth their while, so it went to the County for back taxes.

While I think it's a good thing that the owner would get any equity over and above what the County is able to sell the property for, less the value of any costs incurred by the County to do so, I don't know that it's the Counties job to make any other lien holders whole.

[SouthernDem4ever]

18. True - especially if there were leans on the property

The mortgage holder won't let you sell it. Counties should be able to do an accounting of their costs associated with prep and selling of the property and recover that.

[Hortensis]

19. Thanks for a more complete and very common picture. nt

[cannabis_flower]

23. I hope the lawyer

Was Pro Bono