Breaking News
Investing Pro 0
Free Webinar - Webinar: Simplify Options Trading | Thursday, September 28, 2023 | 08:00PM EDT Enroll Now

US Supreme Court curbs states' property tax 'windfall'

Published May 25, 2023 11:03AM ET Updated May 25, 2023 02:27PM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This article has already been saved in your Saved Items
 
© Reuters. FILE PHOTO: The U.S. Supreme Court building is seen in Washington, U.S. September 30, 2022. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/File Photo

By Andrew Chung

(Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday curbed state and local governments from seizing and selling the homes of people with unpaid property taxes and keeping the proceeds beyond the amount owed, deeming the practice unconstitutional in a ruling in favor of a 94-year-old woman who battled tax authorities in Minnesota.

The justices ruled 9-0 in the property rights case to overturn a lower court's decision to throw out Geraldine Tyler's proposed class action lawsuit accusing Hennepin County, which contains Minnesota's most-populous city Minneapolis, of violating her rights under the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment.

The Supreme Court agreed with Tyler's view that the county violated the Fifth Amendment's bar on the uncompensated taking of private property by a government for public use, a provision known as the "Takings Clause."

Tyler had owed roughly $15,000 in property taxes, including interest and fees. The county foreclosed on her home and in 2016 sold it at auction for $40,000, keeping the balance for its own use.

"A taxpayer who loses her $40,000 house to the state to fulfill a $15,000 tax debt has made a far greater contribution to the public fisc than she owed," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court.

"The taxpayer must render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, but no more," Roberts added.

Under Minnesota's tax regime, the state takes "absolute title" of a property if an owner fails to pay property taxes for five years. Under the system, counties may keep any tax-delinquent property for a public purpose or sell it to other government entities or private buyers. After covering expenses, any remaining proceeds are given to the local school district, city and county. None is refunded to the former owner.

"I'm happy about what this win will mean for a whole lot of people, but especially seniors who would otherwise lose their savings and be put out on the street," Tyler said in a statement released by the Pacific Legal Foundation conservative legal group, which represented her.

"Today's decision is a major victory for property rights in the United States," said Christina Martin, an attorney with the group. "The court's ruling makes clear that home equity theft is not only unjust, but unconstitutional."

Tyler's lawyers said in a court filing that 13 other states have similar policies that let government or private investors benefit when collecting delinquent property taxes.

"Hennepin County represented the interests of Minnesota and many other states with laws that transfer title of abandoned property to reduce the burden to the public," Assistant County Administrator Dan Rogan said. "Hennepin County will work closely with the Minnesota Legislature to create a process that is consistent with the Supreme Court's decision."

In 2010, Tyler moved out of her one-bedroom condominium in Minneapolis and into an apartment building for elderly people. She then stopped paying taxes on the condo. The county said she refused other options to recoup the equity in her condo, including selling it, refinancing her mortgage or signing up for a 10-year tax payment plan.

Retaining the excess value of her home beyond the tax debt constituted a "$25,000 windfall for the public" at her expense, Tyler's lawyers had argued.

The county said that, far from a windfall, tax forfeitures "do not break even." States have long permitted forfeitures of an entire property for neglecting to pay taxes, which are a reasonable condition of property ownership, the county said.

The St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year upheld a judge's dismissal of the case.

President Joe Biden's administration had backed Tyler's claim that the county engaged in an unconstitutional taking.

US Supreme Court curbs states' property tax 'windfall'
 

Related Articles

Add a Comment

Comment Guidelines

We encourage you to use comments to engage with other users, share your perspective and ask questions of authors and each other. However, in order to maintain the high level of discourse we’ve all come to value and expect, please keep the following criteria in mind:  

  •            Enrich the conversation, don’t trash it.

  •           Stay focused and on track. Only post material that’s relevant to the topic being discussed. 

  •           Be respectful. Even negative opinions can be framed positively and diplomatically. Avoid profanity, slander or personal attacks directed at an author or another user. Racism, sexism and other forms of discrimination will not be tolerated.

  • Use standard writing style. Include punctuation and upper and lower cases. Comments that are written in all caps and contain excessive use of symbols will be removed.
  • NOTE: Spam and/or promotional messages and comments containing links will be removed. Phone numbers, email addresses, links to personal or business websites, Skype/Telegram/WhatsApp etc. addresses (including links to groups) will also be removed; self-promotional material or business-related solicitations or PR (ie, contact me for signals/advice etc.), and/or any other comment that contains personal contact specifcs or advertising will be removed as well. In addition, any of the above-mentioned violations may result in suspension of your account.
  • Doxxing. We do not allow any sharing of private or personal contact or other information about any individual or organization. This will result in immediate suspension of the commentor and his or her account.
  • Don’t monopolize the conversation. We appreciate passion and conviction, but we also strongly believe in giving everyone a chance to air their point of view. Therefore, in addition to civil interaction, we expect commenters to offer their opinions succinctly and thoughtfully, but not so repeatedly that others are annoyed or offended. If we receive complaints about individuals who take over a thread or forum, we reserve the right to ban them from the site, without recourse.
  • Only English comments will be allowed.
  • Any comment you publish, together with your investing.com profile, will be public on investing.com and may be indexed and available through third party search engines, such as Google.

Perpetrators of spam or abuse will be deleted from the site and prohibited from future registration at Investing.com’s discretion.

Write your thoughts here
 
Are you sure you want to delete this chart?
 
Post
Post also to:
 
Replace the attached chart with a new chart ?
1000
Your ability to comment is currently suspended due to negative user reports. Your status will be reviewed by our moderators.
Please wait a minute before you try to comment again.
Thanks for your comment. Please note that all comments are pending until approved by our moderators. It may therefore take some time before it appears on our website.
 
Are you sure you want to delete this chart?
 
Post
 
Replace the attached chart with a new chart ?
1000
Your ability to comment is currently suspended due to negative user reports. Your status will be reviewed by our moderators.
Please wait a minute before you try to comment again.
Add Chart to Comment
Confirm Block

Are you sure you want to block %USER_NAME%?

By doing so, you and %USER_NAME% will not be able to see any of each other's Investing.com's posts.

%USER_NAME% was successfully added to your Block List

Since you’ve just unblocked this person, you must wait 48 hours before renewing the block.

Report this comment

I feel that this comment is:

Comment flagged

Thank You!

Your report has been sent to our moderators for review
Continue with Google
or
Sign up with Email