The County Sold Her Home Over Unpaid Taxes and Kept the Profit. SCOTUS Wasn't Having It.
"The taxpayer must render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, but no more," wrote Chief Justice John Roberts.

When local bureaucrats in Hennepin County, Minnesota, seized an elderly woman's home over a small tax debt, sold it, and kept the profit, they likely had no idea they would set in motion a series of events that would cripple the practice known as "home equity theft" across the country.
Yet that's what happened. The Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously ruled that the government violated the Constitution when it took possession of Geraldine Tyler's condo over an overdue property tax bill, auctioned the home, and pocketed the proceeds in excess of what she actually owed.
Tyler, who is now 94 years old, purchased the Minneapolis-area condo in 1999. But a series of events, including a neighborhood shooting, prompted her to relocate to a retirement community in 2010, at which point it became difficult for her to pay both her new rent and the property taxes on her former home. She accrued a $2,300 tax bill, which turned into an approximately $15,000 bill after the government added on $13,000 in penalties, interest, and fees. Local officials then sold the home for $40,000—and kept the remaining $25,000.
Tyler spent years arguing that such a taking was unconstitutional. But despite the case appearing fairly black and white from the outset, she had no such luck in the lower courts. When her case went before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, its ruling was also unanimous—in favor of the government. "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," wrote Judge Steven Colloton.
The Supreme Court forcefully overturned that decision today. "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," wrote Chief Justice John Roberts for the Court. "The taxpayer must render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, but no more."
At the heart of the case is the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which stipulates that "private property [shall not] be taken for public use without just compensation." In explaining the justices' decision, Roberts traced the spirit of the law back to the Magna Carta, then to English law, and ultimately to the States, buttressed by several Supreme Court precedents which, as Roberts wrote, "have also recognized the principle that a taxpayer is entitled to the surplus in excess of the debt owed."
Tyler is far from the only victim of this practice. Home equity theft is legal in Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, South Dakota, and the District of Columbia, although today's ruling should hamstring those forfeiture schemes.
How home equity theft has been executed across those states varies widely, although the life-wrecking consequences remain consistent. In Nebraska, for example, local governments sell tax debt to private investors behind a homeowner's back. The homeowner eventually receives a letter, after three years have gone by, giving them 90 days to satisfy the full tax burden, which has continued accruing over those three years, along with 14 percent interest and additional fees. Over those three years, the debtor does not receive notification from the government of his ballooning debt, as the private investor quietly continues satisfying it.
In 2013, for example, Kevin Fair of Scottsbluff, Nebraska, quit his job to become the full-time caretaker to his wife, Terry, who had been diagnosed with a debilitating form of multiple sclerosis. Without a steady source of income other than Social Security, he fell $588 behind on his property taxes. When he finally received notice from Continental Resources, the private investor that covertly bought out his debt, he could not afford the total, which came out to $5,268.
His house, however, is worth $60,000, and Continental Resources told him it intended to take the whole shebang. "In Nebraska…people are shocked about how the law actually operates," Jennifer Gaughan, chief of legal strategy at Legal Aid of Nebraska, told me in January. "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." In Kevin Fair's case, it was his wife's illness. She has since died.
Prior to oral arguments before the Supreme Court last month, a cross-ideological coalition of organizations assembled in favor of Tyler. Few things are transpartisan these days. But it took a 94-year-old woman and a nearly 10-year crusade to establish the obvious: that the government should not be able to steal home equity from its own citizens.
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
Is government evil, or is it the people that run the government?
Glad the court kicked them in the balls.
Is government evil, or is it the people that run the government?
Yes.
Government is a necessary and unavoidable evil. We need it to protect lives, property rights and such. If we didn't establish a government then gangs of thugs would declare themselves to be government. Which goes to the second part which is that evil people are attracted to power like flies to shit.
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,400 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,400 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link—————————————>>> http://Www.JobsRevenue.Com
Hard to say government protects our property rights when it routinely steals from us twice a month, and demands rent on any real estate we own. If it were offering something valuable, people would pay their dues voluntarily.
Also hard to say government protects our lives when it drafts young people to defend the government in case of war. Seems like it's the other way around.
We don't draft anyone today. That ended during the Vietnam War.
And yet the Selective Service Act remains on the books. The government still claims the power to conscript, even if they're not currently doing it. And don't forget the infamous "stop loss" orders, where volunteers were required to serve beyond what they signed up for. If that isn't conscription, it's really damn close.
Government is a gang of thigs! They are merely a reflection of who we are as a species.
I have made $18625 last month by w0rking 0nline from home in my part time only. Everybody can now get this j0b and start making dollars 0nline just by follow details here..
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
HERE====)> https://www.apprichs.com
The court that did the kicking is also part of the government.
I'm gonna go with "the people that run the government are always tempted into evil". The evil temptation is inherent to the nature of government. But giving in to the temptation is always the responsibility of the individual.
The 'government' doesn't do these things, it's always individuals within that apparatus that need to actually execute the actions, uphold the actions, set the policy, etc.
EXACTLY! No form of government is inherently bad. It is the people running it that makes it bad.
More importantly it’s the people who tolerate the bad behavior of the officials they elected and the officials appointed by the officials they elected who are evil. Some people are tempted into evil whether in official positions or not. In a just society there are a few clearly worded laws that warn everyone what will not be tolerated by society and which will be punished – by officials – if you transgress. That should include officials who violate those laws and a reasonable likelihood that other officials will punish violations, even those committed by officials. Any reasonable person should be able to see this in operation and be confident that the laws are being applied justly.
I tend to agree that bad behavior generally involves some degree of personal choice. But if institutional structures don't actually cause bad behavior, they can enable it. Government can allow bad actors to do far more harm than they might otherwise. It can also shield them from accountability for their bad behavior. Bad actors who suffer no consequences have little incentive to improve their behavior.
Some say power corrupts, while others say the corrupt are drawn to power. Either way, the more power is concentrated, the more likely it is that those wielding that power will be corrupt.
So, instead of small government no government? I thought the commenters here wanted to be thought of as libertarians, not anarchists.
6 or 1/2 dozen
SCOTUS got this one right. Good job guys. Utterly disgusting tactics used by Continental Resources and their scummy ilk. Anyone know the name(s) of the guys tunning that "legal" theft ring? Crapheads.
Tyler v Hennepin
This must have been the easiest unanimous decision all term.
It should have been. And it should have been equally easy at the court below, yet there it was unanimous against her.
Stealing from a grandmother living in a 40K house is always a bad look.
'.....For the second time in my life, I'm proud to be an American...' Michelle Obama, upon hearing the decision and taking time off from her ultra uber alles white privileged life to comment on the case, before heading back to someone's yacht.
Im making over $13k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.last month her pay check was $12712 just working on the laptop for a few hours. This is what I do,
…
VISIT THIS WEBSITE HERE……………….>>> http://www.works75.com
Meow!
Sound like you have a bad case of HODS (Hillary-Obama Derangement Syndrome). It may be too late for you ...
"Worst Supreme Court EVER!!!
"If only the Trumpenfuhrer Orangmanbad hadn't gotten to appoint so many SCOTUS justices, the government would still be able to steal from its citizens at will!"
The three liberal justices also supported this decision.
But the 8th Circuit judges who tried to wave through this brazen theft need to be sent back to a "continuing education" class.
That's not what I would support doing to them ...
Depend on what's meant by "continuing education." If that means quizzing them about basic constitutional law and bashing them over the head with a tack hammer when they get a question wrong then sure, why not. Or better yet if "continuing education" somehow involves woodchippers, sand paper dildos shoved into uncomfortable places, and a public hanging from a lamp post that would be great.
How about "misplacing" their property tax payment, then seizing their multi-million $ homes for a 4 digit underpayment?
I love it. Thats a really great fkn idea! Their heads would spin quite quickly, I'd imagine.
The three liberal justices also supported this decision.
I know, but the kinds of people who spout that nonsense I was parodying without a trace of knowledge, awareness, or sarcasm can't even count to three, much less understand that.
Cases like this have come up prior and had cert denied before. Always remember the first step is getting a case accepted.
Two of the 8th Circuit judges were appointed by GW Bush, the other by Obama.
If you CARE who appointed a judge, your standards are wrong.
it is a good indication of the tribe the judge owes fealty too before the considering the constitution. And, contrary to Roberts – there are dem judges and there are rep judges. Its just that the Rep judges are more likely to respect the spirit of the constitution and the dem ones are more likely to rape the spirit of the constitution.
Remember (before you get too defensive for the dem tribe) – i’m saying ‘more likely to’ – i’m not saying it is necessarily so.
I will also stipulate that there are areas of law where the tribal concerns are not as defined and so allow for a more fair reading of a particular case. This may be one of those cases.
I think it really hurt them to admit any limitation on the government's power to plunder the public, but they realized just how bad the optics would be if they went along with robbing an elderly black lady.
-jcr
In response to the Eight Circuit's idiotic claim that a State could legislatively redesignate real property to not be real property, there's this gem from today's unanimous decision:
Minnesota may not extinguish a property interest that it recognizes everywhere else to avoid paying just compensation when it is the one doing the taking.
Fkn Minnesota. Got called out. I hope everyone else that lost their equity is able to get it back, plus legal fees. Eill see these gdamn cash cow systems flip on their heads REAL fast.
However, the bureaucrats that were implementing those theft systems will simply resign without just punishment, having already spent the money on themselves – flying to exotic places and eating expensive dinners (somehow “required” for the public officer). The whole thing is just sad. Incredibly sad.
Poor wording by the Chief Justice! Sort of suggests that taxpayers will have to render unto Ceasar no more - as in "never again." Perhaps he could have said, "Taxpayers will have to render unto Ceasar only what is due to Caesar." I would also point out that the ruling falls short of overturning the outrageous interest and penalties extracted from property owners.
I would also point out that the ruling falls short of overturning the outrageous interest and penalties extracted from property owners.
And there's their out. They'll just make sure that the interest and penalties account for the full value, or close to it, of the property in question. Easy peasy.
My thinking as well. And if the sale of the property doesn't satisfy Caesar, they'll bill the heirs for the balance. And seize their property if they can't pay.
However, if you look at the concurrence, Gorsuch and KBJ would I think be inclined to regard that as excessive punishment, hence unconstitutional, and in a new case would likely pull some justices along with them.
People on different sides of the Court's factional divisions reaching out to each other to do justice...so nice to see.
(But it's the excessive fines clause you're thinking about)
It is indeed.
The comma makes his meaning quite clear to those with a minimally rudimentary grasp of English.
Yes, that’s true. In related news, fewer than half of public school students now have a “minimally rudimentary grasp of English.” Also see “What does the missing comma in the Second Amendment mean?”
Oh no, we can't jeopardize the cash cows of the evil fkn villains, can we. Sad. Should be a 5% max/cap. AND the evil companies charging it should be forced to send out a human or even process server QUARTERLY or more or forego any interest claimed on the house.
annually or even just 5% period. idk, what do you guys think? We cannot and must not have a repeat of this poor woman's case.
"...unanimously ruled that the government violated the Constitution when it took possession of Geraldine Tyler's condo...."
Well, I'll be damned, miracles really do happen.
I certainly expected at least one of the left-wing shitweasels to try to rationalize the looting.
-jcr
Considering everything, I'd have expected all 3 of them.
"She accrued a $2,300 tax bill, which turned into an approximately $15,000 bill after the government added on $13,000 in penalties, interest, and fees. Local officials then sold the home for $40,000—and kept the remaining $25,000."
The other issue is that government regime used it's power to price gouge by charging extreme penalties. The government regime only had cause to the amount of the original tax theft of $2,300. She should have the remainder returned to her with interest.
Additionally the government regime should be penalized to the tune of millions of dollars and the statute should be declared unconstitutional and struck down. The government regime should be required to required to refund the victims of earlier violations of home equity theft.
Reminds me of those "court fees" that turn a $50 speeding ticket into a $250 bill from the state.
Some fees are appropriate. You can't just not pay your property taxes for years and then get off by paying the original bill; there should be a penalty involved. But $2,300 shouldn't become $15,000, either.
15K is "excessive." 40K is robbery.
Does it matter that she is 94 and that there was terrible crime in the neighborhood? If I go with your view on her failings you should see the government failings too
About damn time.
Im making over $13k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.last month her pay check was $12712 just working on the laptop for a few hours. This is what I do,
…
VISIT THIS WEBSITE HERE……………….>>> http://www.works75.com
Finally, some unambiguously good news about our country! The federal judicial branch is still working well. That’s 1 out of 3 branches that’s not completely fucked but I’ll take it today.
Not really. The other big SC decision had 5 judicial activists effectively rewrite a law passed by Congress to mean something that nobody thought it meant. The other 4 justices actually agree with the practical result in the case based on the facts and the understanding of the law that everyone has had for 45 years. The result from decisions where justices simply decide to rewrite laws is judicial tyranny and total uncertainty because nobody knows how a future SC is going to rewrite laws. The majority opinion was not necessary for this case to be decided the way it was.
"Working well"? SCOTUS may have made the right decision, but the district court and the appeals court did not. And even with this victory, I'm not convinced this woman will see the money before she dies. After three years of court battles, she's won an important victory, but it's not over; this was not a final ruling awarding her a judgement. The dismissal of the case for failure to state a claim is overturned and now it goes back to the district court for further proceedings. The ruling actually uses the phrase "At this initial stage of the case". The federal court system is fundamentally broken because it is incapable of doing anything in a timely manner.
Best SC decision in years and it was unanimous!
True but the rare unanimity suggests to me sloppiness and legal misconduct at the lower levels.
Now about that civil asset forfeiture money train localities are running.
While I applaud the decision, I must again point out that the woman was wrong in just abandoning her residence, living elsewhere, and failing to sell the former residence so she would no longer be obligated to pay taxes.
Oh, sure. And apparently she didn’t pay other condo-related bills either. “According to the County, public records suggest that the condo may be subject to a $49,000 mortgage and a $12,000 lien for unpaid homeowners’ association fees.” I’d argue that those parties should be able to intervene here and collect the surplus to at least partially pay those debts.
It’s also kind of interesting that, even though the county thought it would be getting any surplus, and even though it extinguished all existing liens so they could sell it free and clear, it sold a condo with a $49,000 mortgage for only $40,000. How much was that condo actually worth compared to what they sold it for? When the county has *no* incentive to get more money from the sale, will they be selling properties for even *less*?
That was wrong but that was a very minor wrong. Based on the evidence presented by the state, it was a wrong worth about $2500 - which she agreed with and did not dispute. She didn't even dispute the abusive inflation of that wrong through grossly excessive fees and interest. Her wrong was vastly smaller than the wrong perpetrated by the state.
In the future, the city will sell the house for $5000 to the mayor's best friend and apply the proceeds to her account. the friend will then turn around and sell the house for $40k, then the old woman will still own $10k and the city will make nearly as much profit.
This is basic mafia tactics here.
Government is the greatest and most pernicious force of greed on the planet.
Hopefully she can spend it before she dies.
yeah, absolutely. even if it's on gigolos and blow. lol but seriously, she's old, she can go out with a bang. it's her $$ regardless.
This was some damn good news! The only troubling part of this is that it took going to the Supreme Court to get the right, no-brainer, decision. I only wish that the lower courts could somehow be punished for their extreme and cowardly deference to the state and that the state in question could be severely punished for this theft from a citizen - if not for anything else, to discourage this bad behavior in all areas going forward.
yes. absolutely troubling. stupid dudes in robes acting with inpunity and total disregard for what’s right and just. it could’ve been stopped at the trial court level, however – thank God it wasn’t.
Agreed. All the gutless Libertarians on here are fine with the ruling and ignore the horrible road she had to travel and still has to. Not even a hypocritical Clintonian "I feel your pain" --- may they all reach their 90's and have it happen to them
I never cease to be amazed at how government at all levels can justify their amoral behavior.
Layman here… would love all opinions and advice.
Nevada has a scheme where property owners must request any excess funds within a year or loose it. In my layman opinion this decision just made relative statute of NRS unconstitutional.
My 1 year expired June 2, but my ex-wife who shared ownership with me as Community property with right of survivorship wasn’t properly noticed about sale.
In addition there is drop dead 2 year timeframe to protest the sale. That date is June 2, 2023-Next Friday.
In my opinion this ruling is substantive and therefore should be retroactive.
My ex-wife and I are planning to file on Wednesday Complaint in Las Vegas Federal Courtt in Pro-per (solely due to time constraints, her attorney friend has promised to file in after 3 weeks) seeking to declare Nevada’s 1 year robbery scheme unconstitutional and that latest Supreme Court smackdown is retroactive. In addition will plead all other state law causes of action, just in case.
I think it would be a great surprise if local federal judge would deny sought relief despite such forceful language in this unanimous opinion.
As I said, I’m a layman trying to learn and would most sincerely appreciate any advice.
And with clear understanding this wouldn’t be legal advice
Advice: do not go pro-per or pro se. Big mistake.
I disagree. If it is to preserve statute of limitations until his attorney can take over.
Exactly, she gonna file “skeleton” complaint with factual background, causes of action and prayer. Also Introduction I think should include statement with regards to her lawyer taking over in few weeks.
Not sure if I’m on right track, would it be good idea to also file motion for leave of court to amend complaint? Just in case, defendants file answer asap.
Am I crazy to sue Nevada to declare only 1 year period to claim excess funds unconstitutional? It should be much longer, or perpetual… like they keeping my $25 in unclaimed funds! Lol
Private property is private property, no matter the value. Can you or anyone else please point me to the right case, so I understand better how and why state sponsored robbery hasn’t been addressed.
My most sincere apologies to everyone.
Having read Nelson v City of New York and Covey v. Town of Somers, I’ve realized that I have more energy than knowledge.. Lots to learn!
SCOTUS finally got one right.
Whats troubling is all the lower court decisions for the confiscation.
Does anyone know if this case precedent will be applied retroactively to case that have been already dismissed by the lower federal courts in the last few years?
Nieghborhood shooting, 94 years old...and nobody says the taxes are the problem !!!! A 94-year old should NOT NOT NOT still be under the intolerable burden of taxes. Immoral, stupid, and foolish.
Then you sell her house and, what? Pay 10X as much to deal with all the health, living, and other issues YOU CAUSED.
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.RICHEPAY.COM
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,100 dollars each month simply by kab 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.TOPOFFER1.COM