They Fell Behind on Their Property Taxes. So the Government Sold Their Homes—and Kept the Profits.
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear 94-year-old Geraldine Tyler's case challenging home equity theft.
Geraldine Tyler is a 94-year-old woman spending the twilight of her life in retirement, as 94-year-olds typically do. But there isn't much that's typical about it.
Tyler has spent the last several years fighting the government from an assisted living facility after falling $2,300 behind on her property taxes. No one disputes that she owed a debt. What is in dispute is if the government acted constitutionally when, to collect that debt, it seized her home, sold it, and kept the profit.
If that sounds like robbery, it's because, in some sense, it is. But it's currently legal in at least 12 states across the country, so long as the government is doing the robbing.
In 2010, Tyler moved out of her Minneapolis condo, which she owned, in response to a series of local incidents that made her feel unsafe. That included a nearby shooting. She relocated to an apartment in a different neighborhood but struggled to afford both her rent and the property taxes on her condo, accruing that $2,300 sum.
The vast majority of what Tyler ended up owing, however, was not the property tax itself. It was the additional $13,000 in penalties, interests, and fees added by the government, upping her total to about $15,000—more than a 550 percent increase.
She didn't have the $2,300, much less the $15,000. So the state foreclosed on the condo and sold it to satisfy the debt. That's to be expected. What Tyler didn't expect: After selling the property for $40,000, the government pocketed the remaining $25,000 instead of putting it back in Tyler's hands. This despite no party claiming she owed anywhere near a $40,000 debt.
What the state took had little to do with the amount of debt itself. Had Tyler's condo been valued at, say, $300,000, it would have proceeded the same way. The government would have just been quite a bit richer.
Which is what happened to Tawanda Hall of Oakland County, Michigan, when she, too, accrued a property tax debt. Hall, who lived in the house with her husband and children, set up a payment plan with the local authorities. She eventually fell $900 behind schedule. The total bill—after penalties, interests, and fees—came out to $22,642.
Not unlike Tyler, the government then seized the home, sold it to collect the debt, and kept the profit. Unlike Tyler, the Halls' home was worth more than $300,000.
The state kept the change. It totaled more than $286,000.
What also sets Tyler and Hall apart is that they've had different fortunes in front of federal judges. But that may change for victims of home equity theft everywhere as one received notice on Friday that she will get to make her case in front of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Targeting the Most Vulnerable
It is standard practice for governments to seize properties whose owners fail to pay their taxes. People at city council meetings across the U.S. will debate just how much those taxes should be—they vary widely—or how much local treasury departments should be tacking on in interests and penalties for those who fall behind.
But neither Tyler nor Hall have argued against such a taking.
"We agree that the government can seize the property to collect a debt," says Christina M. Martin, a senior attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation who has represented both women. "What it can't do is take more than it's owed."
Whether or not you'll meet such a fate, should you fall behind on your taxes, depends on where you live. Among the states that allow home equity theft—when the government not only satisfies the debt but also keeps the profit—are Oregon, Arizona, Colorado, Nebraska, South Dakota, Minnesota, Illinois, Alabama, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, and Maine. That list used to be longer. Several states have abolished it.
But the process by which the government steals home equity also looks different in those states that permit it. "In Nebraska…people are shocked about how the law actually operates," says Jennifer Gaughan, chief of legal strategy at Legal Aid of Nebraska, which has represented clients similarly situated to Tyler and Hall. In that state, people who fall behind on their property taxes are bought out, without their knowledge, by private investors. They receive no correspondence.
That changes after three years go by, when they finally get notice in the mail. Included in that letter is that they have 90 days to satisfy the tax burden, the 14 percent interest, and additional fees. It's a Herculean task for individuals and families to accomplish when considering they were struggling to pay the original debt, much less a multiyear accumulation and the associated penalties. If they fail to pay within the short period, the county treasurer gives the deed to the private investor, who then takes the home, sells it, and keeps the change.
Nebraska isn't the only state with an unsavory public-private partnership, which is a distinguishing factor in how states execute home equity theft. Arizona and Illinois, for example, operate similarly, allowing investment companies to do the government's work for them. The prize is someone's home equity. That's contrasted with states like Minnesota, where Tyler lives, which sees stolen equity deposited into government coffers.
"It's usually elderly people…people who own their homes outright who don't have a mortgage, and there's usually some kind of intervening situation," says Gaughan. "It's not just poverty. It's illness, or something happens in their lives….And then they don't have notice of it. And then [the home] is being taken."
In other words, home equity theft targets the most vulnerable people simply by the nature of how it operates. If you fall behind on your taxes, then it stands to reason that you are low-income, or dealing with a life-altering event, or both. Someone unable to pay a tax debt is unlikely to be able to pay that same debt plus the litany of fines and fees that expand it multiple times over. And someone in such a situation will be even more crippled when their last remaining asset is taken from them—their house—and the profits kept. If you didn't have enough money in the bank to pay your taxes, then you probably don't have enough money in the bank to buy a new house.
"I had one person tell me they were suicidal because they lost everything they worked for," says Martin. "It's hard enough to lose your home, but when you lose all your life savings, that's just beyond devastating. It's completely shocking. It often destroys people."
A Divide in the Judiciary
At the core of home equity theft cases is the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. "Nor shall private property be taken for public use," it reads, "without just compensation." It would seem fairly straightforward.
It has not been.
Tyler's case arrived before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit in October 2021. The question before the judges: Was it constitutional when the government seized the 94-year-old's Minnesota condo valued at $93,000, sold it for about half of that, and then kept every last cent, all to satisfy a $15,000 debt?
The answer they arrived at was yes. "Where state law recognizes no property interest in surplus proceeds from a tax foreclosure-sale conducted after adequate notice to the owner," wrote Judge Steven Colloton, "there is no unconstitutional taking."
In other words, according to the 8th Circuit, Tyler—and the many people also in her shoes—simply have no recourse when the government profits off of their poverty. "In every other debt collection context, the debt collector is only allowed to take what is owed, plus the cost of collecting the debt. But here, the government gets to tack on penalties, interests, fees, and then they get to take everything that's left over after that?" asks Martin. "That can't be right."
Maybe it can't be. Hall—the Michigan resident who saw almost $300,000 taken from her in excess—also sued. She wishes it didn't have to go that far. "[I was] running around trying to find out who can I talk to, what can I do to stop this from happening?" Hall tells Reason. "There was really no one there to work with us or help us or even tell us what route to go." Her case fed into the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, and she was joined by seven other parties who had also met that grisly fate. Would the judges rule similarly?
They did not, and their opinion spared no prisoners. "The Michigan statute is not only self-dealing: it is also an aberration from some 300 years of decisions by English and American courts, which barred precisely the action that Oakland County took here," wrote Judge Raymond Kethledge. "The government may not decline to recognize long-established interests in property as a device to take them."
Hall was lucky, although that word feels perverse here. The court ruled that her suit had been prematurely dismissed, and it resuscitated her claim. But she still has to go before a trial court and win to get her six figures in equity back. "We all have problems sometimes and fall behind," Hall says. "To take someone's home…to have them homeless because of a little late payment I think is unfair."
There are some things she cannot get back, however. Her husband, Prentiss, had pneumonia when they lost their home. He rushed back to his job after the government took the entire value of their house—depriving them of their life savings, in other words—though he was still too sick to be there. At work, he fell on his head, sustained a severe brain injury, and died.
The Highest Court Agrees To Weigh In
For the last several years, it has been unclear if Tyler will see an end to her case or if her legal challenge—with the bureaucratic hurdles that prolong such disputes for years—will outlive the 94-year-old.
She got closer on Friday, when the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear her appeal, giving the highest rung of the judiciary the opportunity to end home equity theft for everyone.
"This case identifies a pressing national problem that has festered for decades in the lower courts," reads her petition. "This Court should put the controversy to rest."
Tyler is not alone in her challenge. She has attracted the support of advocates of diverse professional affiliations and backgrounds. Those who have filed briefs in support of her include the National Taxpayers Union Foundation, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, the Wisconsin Realtors Association, AARP and the AARP Foundation, the Buckeye Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and the Cato Institute, among others. There aren't many things that unite people these days. Perhaps outright government theft meets that bar.
"We're not asking for anything unusual here," says Martin, who will be arguing the case in front of the high court. "We're asking that the government not [receive] self-dealing, preferential treatment that allows them to just take a massive windfall, usually at the expense of the most vulnerable people."
Should Tyler win, it would be a fitting metaphor for justice: a 94-year-old woman who had everything taken from her and who, in the last big fight of her life, toppled that giant.
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
While this wasn’t income tax, I imagine tens of thousands of additional IRS agents will result in less crap like this occurring.
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,000 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,100 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link—————————————>>> http://Www.SmartJob1.Com
I am making a good salary from home $6580-$7065/week , which is amazing under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone,
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
Here is I started.…………>> http://WWW.SALARYBEZ.COM
Google pay 200$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12000 for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it outit.. ???? AND GOOD LUCK.:)
https://WWW.APPRICHS.com
You know who else thought he had a right to seize land without compensation?
Canute’s tide? Water supremacy FTW!
Henry VIII?
Making money online is more than $15k just by doing simple work from home. I received $18376 last month. It’s an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office jobs and even a little child can do this and earn money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info on this page….. http://Www.workstar24.com
Owing taxes is bad enough, but the government isn’t entitled to the equity.
the gov has no right to take our property. i wish the challenge was to the concept of property taxes. this is wrong and where the problem begins.
For a better summary of the legal asshattery going on here, see this on Volokh.
This is ridiculous. They basically claim a mere legislature can redefine property on a whim and make the 5th Amendment toothless.
Great crosspost.
Court is incompetent.
If that was their correct reading of the statute, then the only appropriate action is to declare the state tax foreclosure law unconstitutional.
It isn’t really close
Google pays an hourly wage of $100. My most recent online earnings for a 40-hour work week were $3500. According to my younger brother’s acquaintance, he works roughly 30 hours each vad02 week and earns an average of $12,265. I’m in awe of how simple things once were.
.
.
More information→→→→→ https://WWW.DAILYPRO7.COM
And fighting this stuff is what the state LPs should be campaigning on.
Their republicans should use this woman as their poster child for government overreach too. If I were a GOP or LP candidate for office in that state, I would include this woman in all my campaign ads, and mercilessly berate the democrats for what they’ve done to her.
To be fair, it is historically accurate to say that property rights were subject to the whim of a king.
And I think this case highlight’s Thomas’s derision for “due process” as a protection for rights. These people get “due process”.
But we have a 4th Amendment against unreasonable seizures and an 8th amendment against excessive fines. The equity seizure is an excessive fine.
Lawyers are horrible people.
Unlike the looter Kleptocracy politicians who wrote those laws in the first place?
At the Cato Institute I helped draft a brief in support of certiorari addressing this exact point. There is Supreme court precedent that states can define property interests, but it is unclear where the line is between this and a legislature taking property.
https://www.cato.org/legal-briefs/tyler-v-hennepin-county
The solution is to make leftists lifeless
Isn’t this just Timbs v. Indiana all over again?
The number one priority of black robed thieves is to protect the state’s right to grab as much money as they can. That’s how illegal interstate sales tax was made legal.
it’s currently legal
No, it fucking well isn’t. The constitution forbids excessive fines, and it also prohibits taking private property without just compensation. Theft doesn’t become legal just because some asshats in a state legislature try to get away with this kind of shit.
-jcr
++
But I thought that Scalia held that civil asset forfeiture was not a fine.
He was wrong. Would you like some more examples of supreme court fuckups?
-jcr
And those MAGA conservatives will probably take that hard earned money from the government and give it back to that 94 year old Black woman scofflaw.
If justice prevails, yes, exactly.
That house belonged to The People in the first place. Would she have had that house without The State? No.
She didn’t build that!
CITIZEN: But it’s MY house!
GOVERNMENT (chuckling): Sure it is…
property taxes are a crime and unconstitutional. property taxes mean that we don’t own our property but rather rent it from the government. the government can come and take our property from us by force.
They are wealth taxes or, in other words, upward mobility taxes, on the middle working classes.
The Minnesota LP platform does not recognize a pregnant woman as an individual with rights or control over her own reproduction. Aha! It is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the antichoice Mises Caucus, itself a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Lootvig von Mises Institute in Germany, beholden to the antichoice, Trumpanzee, Alternative für Deutchland party now heavily fined and under additional investigation for campaign finance and election irregularities. No help from THOSE lpmn tools for the elderly victim of government mugging. Vee haff priorities! Ja?
If a woman is pregnant, reproduction has already taken place. The right to kill the unborn never existed.
According to Hank, you’re a ‘mystical girl bulliers’.
And crazy old leftists like you don’t recognize the right of an infant to survive. So really Hank, go fuck yourself. Better yet, have them turn up your morphine drip and just die.
Wow, this is truly a shocking and concerning issue. It’s disheartening to hear that the government can legally seize and sell a person’s home, and keep the profits, over a property tax debt. I hope the Supreme Court’s decision in Geraldine Tyler’s case brings about much-needed change for victims of home equity theft. It’s important to remember that it’s not just about the taxes, but also the penalties, interests, and fees added by the government that contributes to the debt.
Violet,
Blogger at https://www.famium.co/
This doesn’t apply to all dogs, but bear in mind that if you make a habit of kicking dogs, especially dogs that you don’t know, you will presently find one to kick (just because you can) that then proceeds to bite the hell out of you, or even tear your head clean off. That danger to dog-kickers increases if you go after dogs who perceive that they have nothing left to lose, including “freedom” in the superannuated.
See, it’s a 100% excise tax on net income, as if she was a REIT engaged in a prohibited transaction. Simple explanation.
My question here is have these women collected transfers from the state at any time? If the state/taxpayers are breaking even or underwater then SCOTUS might find differently. If not, yeah, it’s just theft.
BTW, Colorado has HOAs that seize condos if dues are overdue by four months or so. Global pension fund real estate speculation turned into owners that were impossible to track down, leaving the non speculative owners to pick up the tab. Colorado also has a history of boom/bust real estate and out of country public pension fund real estate speculation – Canadian teachers union, etc.
I don’t mind paying taxes, taxes are necessary, if you want a first class nation you need to pay some taxes. Structured and designed right taxes can be a good thing. You don’t get a competent first class nation without taxes.
That said. . . . . .
The underlying assumption of property taxes is you don’t own your home. It’s like the government says pay rent to us on your house or we take your house. I think property taxes are just plain wrong.
…………But the government unions! and the financial sector that runs the pensions and university endowments.
Fuck off, slaver.
-jcr
Among the most dismaying events of the 21st century is the USA’s abandonment of historical standard prohibitions on usury, which even the Government now practices.
Long considered an outgrowth of natural law and deeply embedded in Roman Law and the English Common Law, usury now enjoys the status of a civil right of any person or institution (usually the 1%) who grants credit to someone else.