This Nebraska Man Almost Lost His Home and All of Its Equity Over a Small Tax Debt. He Just Won in Court.
Kevin Fair fell behind on his property taxes in 2014. The local government eventually gave a private investor the deed to his home.

For years, Kevin Fair has been staring down a coarse reality: poised to have his home seized, along with all of its equity, because he accrued a modest debt on his property taxes. The Nebraska Supreme Court last week said that was unconstitutional.
That such a decision needed to be spelled out in the first place may sound dire. The absurdity of that is dwarfed by the fact that he nearly lost.
Fair is familiar with loss. In 2013, he quit his job to care for his wife, Terry, who had been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. Living on his Social Security, the Fairs were unable to pay their 2014 property tax bill. That $588 debt would set in motion a chain of events that ultimately ended in the Scotts Bluff County government giving a private investor the deed to their home.
In 2015, that investor, Continental Resources, quietly purchased the Fairs' tax debt and continued satisfying the bill with the government. In 2018, the company then sent the couple the charges: $5,268 for the overdue taxes, along with penalties, interest, and fees. If they couldn't pay within 90 days, the company had the right to take the home to pay the debt.
It would also get to keep the profit.
The latter assertion sparked a legal odyssey that saw the Fairs challenge the legality of Nebraska's state-sanctioned home equity theft as the family sought to cling to their house. The value of the home—about $60,000—far exceeded their total debt. But under Nebraska law, it was kosher for investment firms to pocket the surplus equity, meaning the Fairs would be forced to pay an additional $55,000 for their inability to satisfy a $5,268 balance.
This was par for the course in Nebraska when people fell behind on their property taxes. "People are shocked about how the law actually operates," Jennifer Gaughan, chief of legal strategy at Legal Aid of Nebraska, which represents Fair, told me last year. "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. 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."
But the Fairs' lawsuit failed—multiple times. The couple lost in state court, and Fair's wife passed away. So he appealed by himself to the Nebraska Supreme Court, which in 2022 also ruled against him, setting him up to lose his home and all of its value.
Enter the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled unanimously last year that home-equity theft schemes are a violation of the 5th Amendment's Takings Clause, which promises that the government cannot take private property without just compensation. The justices had heard the case of Geraldine Tyler, an elderly woman whose condominium was seized by Hennepin County, Minnesota, in response to a $2,300 property tax debt. The final tab came to $15,000 when adding penalties, interest, and fees. But when the government sold her home for $40,000, it kept the additional $25,000.
"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 unanimous Court. "The taxpayer must render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, but no more."
The Nebraska Supreme Court's recent about-face came in response to that decision from the U.S. Supreme Court, which ordered that the state's judges reconsider their initial ruling on Fair's claims. This go-round, they concluded that pocketing Fair's excess equity would be a violation of the Takings Clause, requiring that the investor reimburse him for the surplus. Whether or not a settlement will be reached allowing Fair to remain in his home remains unclear.
Though the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling last year was supposed to make this the straightforward law of the land, some states—including Arizona, Alabama, New York, and New Jersey—have tried to find ways to work around it, creating labyrinthine requirements that put the burden on the homeowner to fight for their equity back post-seizure.
Chelsea Koetter, for example, lost her Michigan home over a $3,863.40 tax debt. She erred during the state's convoluted process to claim her equity, so the state denied her request and seized the full value of the home. The profit was $102,636.
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
You don’t own your home.
I’ve known this since Kelo.
I guess I'm confused. I thought all the state did was put a lien on your house so when you sold it, they'd come after the amount you owed then.
That is what should happen.
A reasonable state / county might. But then they have to wait for you to transfer ownership.
That's what used to happen (mostly) but that doesn't put cash in the government's pockets now. Much "better" to sell the debt to a sleazy debt collector, get some cash now and then soak them a second time for political contributions the equity "profits" they steal.
Probably kickbacks, or family ties, or both involved with the sale of the debt.
Taxes already constitute a first lien against your property, ahead of any mortgage or other lien. This is why lenders are so insistent that you pay your property taxes; if you don't, the state will sell the property, and not only the owner but the lender loses out. This man would never have lost his house in this way if he'd had a loan against the home, although any of the GSE lenders would have treated him just as heartlessly.
"You didn't build that."
You will own nothing and be happy.
AND ye will eat bug-guts and be happy!!!
The legislative response in Michigan was to require taxpayers to file a notice to claim a refund. Unfortunately, the notice has to be filed by July 1 following the tax foreclosure. Most tax foreclosures are effective March 31, which means the taxpayer is subject to a 90 day statute of limitations. The foreclosing governmental unit has until January 31 in the following year to tell you what your refund might be. You then have until May 31 (four months) to file a motion in the circuit court claiming the refund. It is then set for a hearing for the circuit judge to decide if you are entitled to a refund and the amount of the refund. The Michigan Court of Appeals has found the 90 day statute of limitations to be "reasonable".
$588. Is this what America has come to? There are at least 15 churches in Scotts Bluff. Probably that many more business and community charity type clubs. And they can't raise $588 (loan or gift) to pay this guy's taxes? Or he is so isolated from his community, or such an a--hole, that he has no network of friends and colleagues to ask for help? Maybe this is what happens when everyone just assumes it is only the government's job to come to the assistance of those in crisis?
Taking care of a spouse with MS is an all-consuming task. And friends tend to desert friends who are focused on their spouse's illness. It is odd, though, that he couldn't either get a loan to pay the taxes or get a waiver based on the circumstances.
Lots of people owe money and don't understand the consequences of paying late. This is especially true where, as here, the state sells the debt to a third-party debt collector (with no notice to the debtee), then additional lack of notice as the debt rapidly inflates through fees and interest until suddenly it's 'pay everything right now or lose your house'.
The same thing happens with utility bills. People don't pay for months and think they'll get away with that forever. Then they don't try to avail themselves of the assistance that's available until the truck pulls up to disconnect them and it's too late.
A lot of people don't participate in community functions and keep to themselves. I've lived in my house 15yrs and don't know my neighbors or have any friends down this way. Never associated with anyone I work with outside of the workplace, either. I prefer it.
Maybe he was too proud to ask.
Look, I hate taxes as much as anyone else. But it’s an agreement we’ve entered into with the State, and if we don’t like it we’re 100% free to divest ourselves of our real property interests at fair value and leave the State.
Pay your damn taxes. I do. I don’t like it, but I do it. So does most everyone else. Your “hardship” isn’t an excuse. That’s a bunch of “need creates right” nonsense at work (and if this site were actually libertarian instead of marxistarian, I’d be genuinely shocked at them making the argument).
In 2013, he quit his job to care for his wife, Terry, who had been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis.
Noble. But stupid, if you don’t have the resources to commit to such a thing. And the nobility doesn’t outweigh the stupidity.
Living on his Social Security
aka a fixed income which he clearly didn’t budget for ahead of time.
Is anyone else sick to death of financially irresponsible Americans?
Look, I ain’t taking the side of the taxman here. But I’m not going to be manipulated into believing this guy is some kind of pity case. Especially when we’re talking about a guy who can’t manage to come up with $600 doing a week’s work as a Walmart Greeter or something.
This is something I NEVER understand about the writers at Reason. They pick the absolute worst and least sympathetic cases to try advocate their pet causes. If this had been an article decrying property taxes themselves, it would have been more effective. Instead, it’s just typical “ME HATE RULZ AND GOV” nonsense from clowns like Billy pretending they’re libertarians.
"Look, I ain’t taking the side of the taxman here."
MmmHmm.
Remember to save this comment in case you get sick, lose your job, and fall behind on your taxes.
Sell the property. When you can't keep up with the costs of your standard of living, it's time to downgrade.
How about you read the damn article. This isn't about not paying taxes. It's about paying a $5,000 tax bill with a $60,000 asset and not getting any change back.
That's a consequence of his decision not to pay property taxes.
He's not fighting against paying the taxes. He's fighting against his tax debt being sold to a private company, then inflated, then the company trying to seize his house which is worth far more than the original debt.
Then why didn't he pay them? Avoid the whole thing completely.
It's $600. Who the f can't come up with $600 in a month's time?
People on a fixed income with medical debt piling up . The amount of poor-blaming on this list is astonishing. He didn't blow it on hookers and meth, he quit to take care of his wife because at home nurse cost more than that house and lot put together.
The real crime is some sleazo can pay off the government and take your paid off house out from under you. I understand having a "contract with the gov man to pay taxes" ... where does a 3rd party huckster get the right to swoop in ?
People on a fixed income with medical debt piling up .
Nonsense. "Hey neighbor, hey immediate family member, can you look in on her while I try to make a few hundred bucks doing part-time work?" Or maybe, "Hey charity, I'm really in a bind here and I don't want to lose my house. I know I can't pay it back, but could you find it in your heart?" Or maybe, "Y'know, I don't need half this stuff I've got piled up around here. Maybe I can get a few hundred bucks if I sell it."
There are always options. Ignoring the debt is not one of them. Not unless you're willing to accept the consequences of it.
Why so many Americans believe otherwise is mind-boggling, and explains why we're in such economically perilous times. Friggin' entitled jerks.
he quit to take care of his wife because at home nurse cost more than that house and lot put together.
Good for him. It's totally irrelevant to the topic at hand. I don't know why the article/commenters even bring it up. It's not even worth mentioning.
The real crime is some sleazo can pay off the government and take your paid off house out from under you.
Perhaps. But what's the alternative? If there are no consequences to choosing not to pay your taxes, why would anyone ever do so?
One of the bigger issues the country has is people OBSESS over federal elections....but basically ignore local ones, and the local government is the one that can really, REALLY fuck you over.
Indeed. It's why Marxists - especially LGBT pedo's and their enablers - like to infiltrate school boards. It's how they worm their way into grooming kindergartners.
I thought that was the book banning / burning MAGA nutjobs ?
No, it's the pedos.