The State Took Her Home Because She Missed $900 in Property Taxes
Tawanda Hall's house was worth $286,000 more than her overdue tax bill. There was nothing she could do about it.

Did you know that in some states, if you miss one tax payment, local politicians will take your home, sell it, and keep all the profits?
Really.
Tawanda Hall was behind on her taxes. She was on a payment plan but had missed $900. She didn't expect Southfield, Michigan, to take her entire house because of that. It was worth $286,000 more than what she owed.
"I'm still in shock," says Tawanda Hall in my new video. "They took my whole house, my whole family's livelihood."
John Bursch, a lawyer for the county, says while this practice may sound unfair (yes, it sure does), "It's also unfair to force those who pay their taxes to subsidize those who don't."
"I pay taxes!" Hall responds. She works as a nursing assistant. "I lift people. I bathe people. I work hard."
When Hall found out she was going to lose her home, she tried to pay off the debt.
"I went to the mayor's office, I went down to the city county building," she says. "They didn't want our money. They said no."
They wanted her house.
Taking it should be illegal.
"I think it's unconstitutional," says Christina Martin, senior attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation. "The government can't take more than it's owed."
The Foundation is suing local governments in six states for this type of home theft.
Martin won one case in Michigan's Supreme Court. Oakland County had taken an entire home over an $8 debt.
Matthew Hodges, the county's lawyer, argued, "There couldn't be anything more fair than informing property owners of what is going to happen, giving them time to act and then letting them make an informed choice."
Martin's response: "Do you think if he knew he owed $8, he would have paid it? Of course! He didn't know, and there wasn't the proper incentive to let him know."
In fact, the town has an incentive not to let him know. Officials rarely tell people: "Pay! Or we'll take your home!" Towns that do this write notices in legalese: "a tax lien acquired under a certain Instrument of Taking from the Collector of Taxes for the city…said instrument of Taking covers a certain parcel of land…"
Hall doesn't remember receiving "anything other than, 'Get out.'"
Despite the Michigan Supreme Court ruling, a judge dismissed Hall's case because the government itself did not make the profit. In her case, the town gave her home to a private business. That business, the Southfield Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative, sold the house and kept the money.
The business says it uses the town's donations to maintain attractive, safe neighborhoods, protect and raise property values.
"Government shouldn't be able to steal from its own people and then give it over to their friends," says Martin.
I ask her how she knows Southfield Neighborhood Revitalization officials are "friends" of the politicians.
She replies, "The company is literally run by the mayor and the city administrator!"
I wanted to interview them. Neither would agree to talk to me.
I'm surprised how common this kind of government home theft is. If you are behind on taxes, even just $10 behind, 11 states allow local governments to sell your home and keep all its value.
In Massachusetts, a 66-year-old grandmother is "sleeping in her car right now," says Martin. "The city took her property, turned around and sold it within days of evicting her."
Although her debt was just $30,000, they sold her house for $242,000 and kept the difference.
The Pacific Legal Foundation has gotten three states to stop engaging in this home equity theft. Good.
Eleven more to go.
COPYRIGHT 2022 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
But were there abortions performed in the house?
Yes! Justice, common sense, decency, kindness, consideration, fairness, and "love of your neighbor" were ALL aborted here!
But were there abortions performed in the house?
More importantly, how did they vote in this house?
No, but her house was stolen by your democrat friends. You must be so proud.
That nearly happened to my father back in the 90s, he didn't know his property taxes were in such arrears until we got a notice that the house was doing to be sold for taxes - the next day! Fortunately he were able to go to the courthouse and settle it that same day.
Sure there should be a process, but they need to make the process difficult to get into and as easy as possible to get out of. And selling the house to a private company seems super sketchy.
I guess I don't care about that so much, as much as keeping all excess earnings above and beyond the fine, and that this is not a super procedural takings effort.
If someone doesn't pay taxes, goes through the entire court system and appeals process, and is then the house is sold as a means to recoup the losses with excess being given to the owner, I'm more okay with. I'm sure there's abuses there too, but this case here seems very aggregious.
Random musing though. I always feel iffy about property taxes for this reason. Means you can never truly own your house and land in some fundamental way.
That's what gets to me. Forced sales are sometimes necessary. However keeping the excess costs is not only morally repugnant, but just asking for corruption.
I'm astonished these people are still breathing, honestly.
Do you want killdozers? Because this is how you get killdozers.
A constitutionally protected function of government thanks to Kelo v. New London. They just need to call it eminent domain.
Kelo v. New London
As long as the SCOTUS is reversing decisions...
That and Wickard v. Filburn.
South Dakota v. Wayfair
Miller
Even in eminent domain, they have to give the owner the nominal value of the home. It's often an unfair evaluation, but at least there is the pretense of equity. This is just brazen, grand theft.
failure to pay taxes when due does NOT trugger eminent domain. Try again?
And Kelo needs to be overturned more than does Roe/Wade. Kelo was rotten from the git go, no constutitional basis, and was the fruit of corruption with the city being long time in bed with the developers. (I take some small comfort in the FACT that, at least asof last year, the developers have never moved ahead on completing the project. That land sits a fallow overgrown eyesore today. A bitg pile of oetic justice, there. Their greed did not pay off.
No, kelo allowed the taking for economic development under the guise of eminent domain which would increase tax revenues giving the state a compelling interest. The company selling the homes claims they are increasing property values, and as a consequence increase tax revenue. Same standard. I think you missed the point of the comment.
Shame her grandson wasn't Happy Gilmore.
Grandsons build a dozen killdozers.
Stossel needs to bring out his giant pair of scissors to cut off that giant hand trying to steal that house.
This case should go for the plaintiff. The city not only had a profit motive to NOT inform the owner, nor to simply attatch the house for taxes, because they knew full well they were goig to reap a handsome reward for their in-house lawyers to process the administrative mumbojumbo and steal the home from its rightful owner.
In such circumstances, the government entity should ONLY be able to keep the owed debt plus actual costs of suit (in house lawyer grabs are not ACTUAL costs) returning the balance to the owner. That was HER money they geve to their pals. Which is the OTHER reason this should be overturned and remanded. It stinks like three week old codfish that the city sold the place to itself under a false non-profit entity. So the city keeps the YUUUUGE difference.
The DEBT was the amount of the taxes plus fees/penalties/interest. Add actual costs of sale to liquidate, city gets their due and no more, the balance MUST go to the rightful owner, this lady. Anything above that is an unlawful taking.
Crap like this will continue to fester until someone plays killdozer, or a group decides to Jan 6th the local goons who perpetrate this garbage.
Chain the doors shut on City Hall, set the whole thing on fire, shoot at the firefighters who show up to put it out, and actually shoot the cops who show up to stop you from using suppressive fire on the fire department. Whoever does this will want to make sure the Mayor stays in the oven long enough.
I don't see how this squares with the right to due process. If the city does not tell you that you are at risk of losing your home and gives a clear amount to pay off within a reasonable time, then that is not due process at all.
Well, it's John Stossel, after all -- surely you weren't expecting a well-rounded, non-inflammatory account.
The 3+ years of due process are outlined in the order dismissing the corresponding civil case:
Oh, and footnote 2 says the Michigan legislature eliminated this entire scheme last year. But when you've spent this much time putting together an outrage piece, why let a pesky detail like the fact it's now completely moot stop the presses?
At least she gets the same due process as pro republican protesters
Clear violation of due process IMO
As bad as some banks and utilities are with late or other "gotcha" fees the government tends to be much much worse.
Lots of liberal states (and probably some conservative ones) have consumer protection laws which prevent some of the more outrageous "gotcha" fees from private companies. These laws should also apply to government entities as well.
But the government will happily take your tax money and use it to pay off the college loan debt of some clown making $150K who can’t maintain a budget.
Tawanda Hall's house was worth $286,000 more than her overdue tax bill. Only if there is no mortgage or other outstanding liens against the property. For all we know from this silly screed is that she may have just lost 11$.
Soon, very soon, the American Experiment (of domesticating humans as pets) is all going to come crashing down. Both philosophical extremes now push for it openly and aggressively, while the head-burying, willfully obtuse moderates all pretend this will blow over next (rigged) election cycle. Nope. As soon as 2024, hundreds of thousands of these smarmy, thieving, pencilneck, politiclass aywholes are going to be lined up in real public squares (not Twitter) and eviscerated. If curious how that is done, watch the Northman.
"It's also unfair to force those who pay their taxes to subsidize those who don't." Hmm, agreed, he's wrong to apply it in this instance, with the facts presented here, but in general, taxpayers should not be paying off others' debts.
22,642 is the amount owed according to the website for the legal aid org representing Tawanda. Not 900. While I do agree that taking the entire value of the property in excess of the debt owed is corrupt, it's always smart to be realistic about things and she was likely in arrears for a while, and was just at that time seeking a payment plan that she doesn't sound likely to have been able to make a significant difference with. She could have sold the house herself and perhaps that is what the town should have been pointing out as an option for her.
Although her debt was just $30,000, they sold her house for $242,000 and kept the difference.
How do these people sleep at night?
Shouldn't they have cut her a check for $212,000?
That's a pretty steep fine for not paying your taxes. Selling your house out from under you is enough disruption for people to want to avoid that if they can.
No, they should have cut her a check for the difference between the tax debt and what the house sold for minus mortgage, lawyers fees, costs to the town for having to do it and so on.
There is a pretty steep price for not paying your debts, unfortunately too many people think everything is free.
No surprise a blue state is involved.
How much longer?
John Bursch is GOP. He was part of the Snyder administration.
Property taxes. The means of enslaving people. Property taxes are what tells everyone home ownership is a lie.
Brother, your preaching to the choir on this one. I ended up selling a house because the taxes were raised higher than I could afford to pay. I could afford the mortgage but because of tax law changes and inflated property values the taxes became more than I could do. Sucks
I think I would have to violently retaliate against anyone and everyone involved if they took my home.
This is why we need a constitutional amendment banning property taxes.
The constitution forbids excessive fines. This needs to be litigated in a federal court.
-jcr
jesus christ people, do your own homework, the court records are publicly available via a single google search shows that this article is bologna and reeks of lies and frivolous race cards being pulled, cant flim flam the tax man
https://casetext.com/case/hall-v-oakland-cnty-treasurer-andrew-meisner-1
"• Plaintiff Tawanda Hall owed $22,642.00 in delinquent property taxes. The Oakland County Treasurer foreclosed, issued a tax deed in favor of the City of Southfield for the minimum amount due under the GPTA, and the City quit claimed the property to SNRI for $1.00. The property was subsequently sold for $308,000.00."
"-PLAINTIFF
AMOUNT DUE
SOLD AMOUNT
Hall
$22,642 (Compl. ¶ 21)
$22,642 (ECF No. 1, PgID 36)
Miller
$29,759 (Compl. ¶ 22)
$29,759 (ECF No. 1, PgID 39)
AmericanInternet
$9,974 (Compl. ¶ 23)
$9,974 (ECF No. 1, PgID 42)
Akande
$2,415 (Compl. ¶ 24)
$2,415 (ECF No. 1, PgID 45)
Lee
$30,547 (Compl. ¶ 25)
$30,547 (ECF No. 1, PgID 48)
Byers
$4,113 (Compl. ¶ 26)
$4,113 (ECF No. 1, PgID 51)
Govan
$45,350 (Compl. ¶ 27)
$45,350 (ECF No. 1, PgID 54)"
I wouldn't have expected a pile of fifty centers to come in and argue on behalf of the mayor that uses the county to steal houses for him But I guess he can probably afford it.
Yes, everyone here grasps the legal fiction being employed to claim that the county can't be sued for that, because the county only took as much as they were owed and then gave the rest away. To the mayor.
Say you owed me $500. So I stole your car, claimed $500 in value from it, and then quitclaimed it to a company my cousin owns for $1. You'd call that kosher?
Why the fuck do people think they can make blatantly mendacious arguments and actually achieve anything with them? It's baffling.
I don't know what you are saying, here. She owed a ton of money and knew it because she was on a payment plan that she couldn't even keep up with. Obviously she was in way over her head and should have sold the house to pay what she owed. The argument, I think, is the difference between her tax bill and what it was sold for. After all expenses (mortgage, lawyers, taxes owed etc) the difference should have been given back to her not to the city for their use.
What are the 11 states that allow sales of homes like this to happen?
1) She was $30,000 in tax debt which indicates she was in a house she couldn't afford
2) She had the house seized because she was $900 late in a payment plan indicating she couldn't even do that
3) Most likely not her first rodeo on this. The reason I say this is that she set up a payment plan.
4) What was her mortgage? If she could afford a house like that then why didn't she pay the taxes? What was the difference between what was owed and what it was sold for? The town should have seized the house, sold it for market value minus mortgage payoff, taxes owed and reasonable fees to do so and refunded the difference back or told her to sell the house and pay what she owed.
5) The Housing thing is a bit sleazy as the mayor and town council sit on the board but they are not randomly seizing and selling property. If you can't make your car payment do you think the bank is going to let you keep it or come get it?
BTW: you don't get to stay in a house without paying taxes with just a tax lien placed on the property as eventually the taxes owed will be higher than the value of the house. It must have taken several years to hit $30,000 so that lady knew this was coming but didn't do anything about it. A town can't just say "hey, tomorrow we are seizing and selling your house because you owe us $30,000" Doesn't work like that.