She Had $2,300 in Unpaid Taxes. The County Bilked Her for $25,000.
Geraldine Tyler's case is not unique; home equity theft is legal in Minnesota and 11 other states.

After Minnesota retiree Geraldine Tyler fell $2,300 behind on her property taxes, Hennepin County seized her condo, sold it, and kept every penny to satisfy her debt. A case that the U.S. Supreme Court is considering asks whether this particular strain of government theft is constitutional.
In 2010, Tyler, then in her early 80s and now 94, moved out of her Minneapolis condo, which she owned, and relocated to an apartment in a safer neighborhood. She struggled to cover both her rent and the property taxes on her condo, accruing $2,300 in back taxes and another $13,000 in penalties, interest, and late fees.
Tyler could not afford to pay the $2,300 debt, much less the total bill. So the county foreclosed on her condo and sold it. That much is not unusual. What Tyler did not expect was that the government, after selling her condo for $40,000, would keep all of the proceeds instead of deducting her debt and returning the $25,000 difference to her.
Had Tyler's condo been valued at, say, $300,000, the process would have played out the same way. That's what happened to Tawanda Hall of Oakland County, Michigan, when she fell $900 behind on her payment plan for back property taxes. Her total bill—after penalties, interest, and fees—came to $22,642. The county seized the home that Hall shared with her husband and children, sold it to collect the debt, and kept the difference, which totaled about $286,000.
"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 and will argue Tyler's case before the Supreme Court in April. "What it can't do is take more than it's owed."
That practice, known as home equity theft, is legal in Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, and South Dakota, as well as the District of Columbia. The list used to include Michigan, where recent decisions by state and federal courts have largely eliminated the practice.
The process is different in each state. Legal Aid of Nebraska's Jennifer Gaughan says "people are shocked about how the law actually operates." Homeowners who fall behind on their property taxes are bought out, without their knowledge, by private investors. They initially receive no correspondence and therefore have no idea their tax burden is rapidly growing.
After three years of overdue taxes, property owners get letters informing them that they have 90 days to pay their debts, which now include 14 percent annual interest and additional fees. If they fail to pay within that time period, the county treasurer gives the deed to an investor, who takes the home, sells it, and keeps the profit.
"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 [else] happens in their lives." Because they receive such late notice, she says, their homes are "being taken" before they can raise the money to prevent it.
The legality of home equity theft hinges on the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. "Nor shall private property be taken for public use," it reads, "without just compensation." That might seem straightforward, but it isn't.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit heard Tyler's case in October 2021. The question for the judges: Was it constitutional for the government to seize her condo, which the Pacific Legal Foundation says was valued at $93,000, sell it for less than half of that, and then keep every last cent, all to satisfy a $15,000 debt?
Yes, the 8th Circuit ruled four months later. "Where state law recognizes no property interest in surplus proceeds from a tax foreclosure-sale conducted after adequate notice to the owner, there is no unconstitutional taking," Judge Steven Colloton wrote for a unanimous three-judge panel.
"In every other debt collection context," Martin says, "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, interest, fees, and then they get to take everything that's left over after that? That can't be right."
Hall also sued, and she fared better. "[I was] running around trying to find out who can I talk to, what can I do to stop this from happening," she says. "There was really no one there to work with us or help us or even tell us what route to go." Her case ended up at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, where she was joined by other plaintiffs who had faced the same predicament.
The appeals court lambasted Michigan and Oakland County. "The 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," Judge Raymond Kethledge wrote for a unanimous panel in July 2022. "The government may not decline to recognize long-established interests in property as a device to take them."
Ruling that Hall's lawsuit had been prematurely dismissed, the 6th Circuit resuscitated her claim. But she still has to persuade a trial court that she has a right to reclaim her six figures in home equity.
Even if Hall wins, there are some things she can't replace. Her husband, Prentiss, had pneumonia when they lost their home. Although he was still sick, he rushed back to his job after the government took the value of their house—essentially their life savings. He fell, sustained a severe brain injury, and died.
"We all have problems sometimes and fall behind," Hall says. "To take someone's home….because of a little late payment, I think, is unfair."
Martin is hopeful the Supreme Court will agree when it decides Tyler's case later this term. "I had one person tell me they were suicidal because they lost everything they worked for," Martin says. "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."
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
Killdozer. Now.
Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29658 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined this action 2 months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it what I do.....
For more detail visit the given link..........>>> http://Www.jobsrevenue.com
Just work online and earn money. He now makes over $500 a day by working from home. I made $19,517 last month just doing this online job 2 hours a day. so easy and no special skills required…(n25) You can run google and then make this work.
.
.
More information can be found here……… https://Www.Coins71.Com
The real question--why would they do such a thing? You have to be pretty evil to do this. And why would we want to have a government that does such a thing?
I wish nothing but bad on the people who do things like this.
You have your answer--they're evil.
So what is to be done?
The decision-makers who drive such inequities do so because they are assured that they make such decisions (they can make such decisions) from a position of complete safety and “non-involvement”, the classical description of “having no skin in the game”.
Once, when, and IF the decision-makers realize (are brought to the realization?) that those from whom they steal will involve some involuntary decision-maker skin in the game, such decisions will become much less frequent, if not be eliminated completely. But until that time arrives, why should those who can do so not reach out to take that which is easy to take. Civil forfeiture is a similar state theft from those who are unable to protest effectively, for the benefit of those who currently know they have the ability to take from the helpless. It is "interesting" that there are no wild honeybees without stingers even though the act of stinging involves the ultimate individual sacrifice from the bee – if such ever existed, they became extinct.
I have just received my 3rd Online paycheck of $28850 which i have made just bydoing very simple and easy job Online. This Online job is amazing and regularearning from this are just awesome. Now every person can get this home job andstart making extra dollars Online by follow details mentioned on this webpage…………
SITE. ——>>> Earningpay
Toxa - do you shave your pubes before your webcam show, or do you clean up the kitty on-cam? (Asking for a friend who wants a peep.)
This is how serfdom works--obey or die.
Two Bush and one Obama judge ruled using idiots logic, basing it on a technicality, i.e. since the State took 'absolute' ownership due to a forfeiture that the owner could not afford to litigate, they are entitled to the 'absolute' proceeds. It's like saying that since a 93 year old woman had the right to fight a 23 year old Joe Louis for the surplus, and choose not to fight, she loses by default.
Remember that this is the same government that was more than eager to allow long-term rent avoidance in the name of COVID. If you're a renter, you get special treatment. If you're a property owner, you're the devil. Just more wealth redistribution.
How horrible of a person do you have to be to do such a thing to people?
A Democrat. Or in Minnesota, Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party (DFL), like 6 out of 7 Hennepin County commissioners.
In the Michigan case mentioned, the Oakland County commission is 13 - 6 Democrats, and every official elected county-wide is a Democrat. But to be fair, it's likely that part of the fault is bipartisan Although it's Democrats that thus abuse the law to steal real property, Republicans in the legislature must have acquiesced in changing the law to allow such abuse.
When I came back to Michigan in 1987, I considered bidding at tax auctions, but after I looked into the laws, it was just too risky for a home I would move my family into. E.g., the owner had up to 6 months _after_ the auction to pay his taxes and reclaim the property. Considering that most houses that come up in mortgage and tax auctions are definitely fixer-uppers in need of work as soon as you move in (usually maintenance is the first thing a financially distressed family neglects and taxes are the last), I might have given six months of work and building materials to the original owner! It must have been difficult for local governments to auction such places off for enough to pay the back taxes...
Sometime in the thirty years after that, the legislature changed the law to the opposite extreme - local government could do a bare minimum to notify the owner of overdue taxes, confiscate it for unpaid taxes only a few percent of the market value, auction off the house, and keep all the proceeds of the auction. I don't know when that happened, but Republicans had a majority in at least one house of the legislature and could have blocked the change for most of those years - or even in the brief periods of a Democrat governor and Democrat control of both houses, Republicans could have raised a fuss so everyone knew what the Democrats were up to.
Property taxes are but a version of wealth taxes. They should be considered illegal taxation schemes and outlawed in every state and jurisdiction of our republic. The only direct tax that is appropriate is the income that is realized at the sale of property.
All taxes are theft or extortion. Those who founded the USA were aware of that, but also aware that you can't have an effective common defense without extorting the funds to pay for it. Taxes on real estate became the traditional form of tax supporting the smallest units of government because they are the one form of tax you cannot avoid by moving out of the jurisdiction. You can move your wealth, you can strip your house of every movable item of value, you can even shift your income across the border, and this is easier the smaller the jurisdiction, but the land and large sturdy buildings are immovable.
Which brings up the one recently invented tax that is far worse than real property taxes: the notion that the US federal government and the state o California have that they can still tax your income and movable wealth after you've moved away.
The problem is, if the government is only allowed to keep however much they're owed, it won't make any difference to how much the debtors get paid.
This is what happens currently:
Someone owes the govt $10,000.
The government seizes the person's home, worth $100,000.
The government sells the home.
The government gets $100,000.
The former homeowner gets $0.
This is what would happen if the government was only allowed to keep what it was owed:
Someone owes the government $10,000.
The govt seizes the person's home, worth $100,000.
The government sells the home for $10,000, because they have no incentive to negotiate the price any higher because they wouldn't be allowed to keep any of the extra money.
So, the government gets $10,000.
The former homeowner still gets $0.
Now you see, this policy proposal is not a very good idea, because it makes no difference to the debtor's but it will worsen government debt because the government will no longer be able to use these funds to subsidize their spending, so they will borrow more money instead.
I have just received my 3rd Online paycheck of $28850 which i have made just bydoing very simple and easy job Online. This Online job is amazing and regularearning from this are just awesome. Now every person can get this home job andstart making extra dollars Online by follow details mentioned on this webpage…………
SITE. ——>>> Earningpay
Lunatic alert!!
How about this:
I, as a private citizen, am owed money by a homeowner. Let's say I did some work on a property that they hired me for - built a deck or something similar - and at the end of the project the homeowner doesn't pay me, or doesn't pay me the full amount, for whatever reason.
Now, I cannot foreclose on the house and just take the whole thing, but I do have other options. I could sue them and be awarded damages. If they can't pay I could get a lien placed on their property so that if they ever sell it or pass it along as inheritance, I get paid then.
Why shouldn't the government do something similar?
Because taking a $100k property for $10k in debt seems like it ought to run afoul of the whole 'taking without just compensation' part of the constitution, whether the government entity that does it realizes the gains or not.
It's right in the article:
"If they fail to pay within that time period, the county treasurer gives the deed to an investor, who takes the home, sells it, and keeps the profit."
Who do you suppose the "investor" may be? My guess is it's their dear brother John or sister Nancy. Perhaps it's an investment company owned by members of the county board. The county likely isn't profiting much but I'm pretty sure some gov't officials are.
That'll teach her not to pay her taxes.
You have no place on a Libertarian page. Or a conservative page. Go cheerlead for Big Government on some far-left page and leave decent people alone.
That might be a reasonable response if I were serious.
While I disagree fully with the government actions here, all of these people had paths to resolve this issue long before that happened. They could have paid the bill on time, caught up after they were late in the many months afforded them to do so, taken a loan against the equity in their house (for all of these had major equity), or just sold it outright to satisfy the debt and take the equity with them. If any sort of appropriate procedure was followed, they should have received many notifications of their debt, failure to pay, delinquency, and accrued interest and fees. They do have to take some level of responsibility there, as an individual.
Even with all of that, it is completely wrong to take more than the value of the debt and tell them "too bad". Sure sounds like another version of government cash-seizing Asset Forfeiture to me.
The answer is in the article. Essentially they get bushwhacked at the 3 year mark and given only 90 days to pay or else.
They initially receive no correspondence and therefore have no idea their tax burden is rapidly growing.
Yes, they should see the tax bill but if they've moved then it's unlikely the tax bill will follow. I had to dog the county for two years to get the tax bill for a property I own sent to my house instead of an empty lot that I bought just before Covid with the plan to build but got put on hold due to Covid, lumber prices and tariffs, supply chain issues, etc. Fortunately I tend to be proactive and check online but even that has drawbacks as the county changed the real estate ID number when they combined a small access plot with the main one and sent the notice to, you guessed it, the empty lot. I suppose I should have put instructions to mail the tax bill to my residence when filing the paperwork. Oh wait, we did according to the papers on file with the county.
The process is the punishment.
I don't see why the 8th Amendment wouldn't also apply here.
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
If the gov't is keeping the excess equity than that's one hell of a fine for an unpaid bill. Granted, it isn't civil asset forfeiture like Austin v. United States or Timbs v. Indiana but it is a bit more like United States v. Bajakajian as the keeping of the excess equity also seems "grossly disproportional to the gravity of a defendant's offense". I suppose the gov't could claim that it isn't a punitive forfeiture but if it isn't punitive then why isn't the excess returned to the individual?