Jump to content

Supreme Court rules against county for keeping a woman’s assets after a property seizure.

tvc184

By tvc184
in Political Forum

 Share

Recommended Posts

tvc184

tvc184

Posted
Posted

In yet another unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a 94 year old woman.

The woman owned or had equity in a condo/apartment and was behind on taxes. The county in Minnesota eventually seized the property and sold it at auction. That was not the issue though. 

In most states (likely all), property can be seized for taxes. Then after property is seized and sold, the government gets to keep the taxes owed but the rest (after liens are paid) is supposed to be returned to the owner.

For example: A person has a $200,000 home. He is behind $10,000 in taxes and legal fees. The guy still owed $50,000 on the mortgage. So the government seized the property and sells it at auction for $175,000. They keep $10,000 for the taxes and fees owed and $50,000 will go to pay off the mortgage. That still leaves $115,000 after everyone has been paid off. That is supposed to be given to the owner. 

Apparently in some states (such as this MN case, instead of returning the ballance to the rightful owner, the county (or state)  gets to keep it. It is like civil asset forfeiture on steroids. The county got back what they were owed in taxes and fees however they kept the rest of it.

You might think, surely that can’t be legal… but it was… until today.

Tyler v. Hennepin County, MN
 

This is the hidden content, please

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Reagan

Reagan

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, tvc184 said:

In yet another unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a 94 year old woman.

The woman owned or had equity in a condo/apartment and was behind on taxes. The county in Minnesota eventually seized the property and sold it at auction. That was not the issue though. 

In most states (likely all), property can be seized for taxes. Then after property is seized and sold, the government gets to keep the taxes owed but the rest (after liens are paid) is supposed to be returned to the owner.

For example: A person has a $200,000 home. He is behind $10,000 in taxes and legal fees. The guy still owed $50,000 on the mortgage. So the government seized the property and sells it at auction for $175,000. They keep $10,000 for the taxes and fees owed and $50,000 will go to pay off the mortgage. That still leaves $115,000 after everyone has been paid off. That is supposed to be given to the owner. 

Apparently in some states (such as this MN case, instead of returning the ballance to the rightful owner, the county (or state)  gets to keep it. It is like civil asset forfeiture on steroids. The county got back what they were owed in taxes and fees however they kept the rest of it.

You might think, surely that can’t be legal… but it was… until today.

Tyler v. Hennepin County, MN
 

This is the hidden content, please

 

Was it actually legal or did they just do it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Englebert

Englebert

Posted
Posted

With this ruling, I'm curious if any "incentive" exists for the property to be sold for actual value. For example, if the State is owed...say $10,000, but the property is worth...say $200,000, what would prevent the State from selling the property for just $10,000 (especially to a campaign donor). I'm 100% in favor of the ruling. If some kind of fair market value rules do not exist for these types of sales, that definitely should be looked into.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tvc184

tvc184

Posted
  • Author
Posted
7 hours ago, Englebert said:

With this ruling, I'm curious if any "incentive" exists for the property to be sold for actual value. For example, if the State is owed...say $10,000, but the property is worth...say $200,000, what would prevent the State from selling the property for just $10,000 (especially to a campaign donor). I'm 100% in favor of the ruling. If some kind of fair market value rules do not exist for these types of sales, that definitely should be looked into.

I believe that all states probably have a law requiring it to be put at auction.

 They seize the property, sell it at auction, pay off any liens/mortgages, take what they are owed and the rest goes back to the owner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PAMFAM10

PAMFAM10

Posted
Posted
On 5/26/2023 at 4:41 PM, Englebert said:

With this ruling, I'm curious if any "incentive" exists for the property to be sold for actual value. For example, if the State is owed...say $10,000, but the property is worth...say $200,000, what would prevent the State from selling the property for just $10,000 (especially to a campaign donor). I'm 100% in favor of the ruling. If some kind of fair market value rules do not exist for these types of sales, that definitely should be looked into.

Good question 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CardinalBacker

CardinalBacker

Posted
Posted
On 5/27/2023 at 12:43 AM, tvc184 said:

I believe that all states probably have a law requiring it to be put at auction.

 They seize the property, sell it at auction, pay off any liens/mortgages, take what they are owed and the rest goes back to the owner.

You are correct... the minimum bid for the property is required to be the amount of taxes/costs due, or it's "market value".... whichever is lower.  If the property sells for more than the minimum bid, the taxpayer has two years to request the excess proceeds from the sale... in Texas, anyways.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Member Statistics

    45,924
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    TRUTHTELLER409
    Newest Member
    TRUTHTELLER409
    Joined


  • Posts

    • pine curtain
      Nederland is open, Barrow Resigns

      By pine curtain · Posted

      👍. 
    • CardinalBacker
      It’s kinda weird…

      By CardinalBacker · Posted

      That there’s not a single thread on the fact that the Republican nominee is on trial for paying off a porn star with whom he had an affair while the future First Lady was carrying said nominee’s child.    I remember back when the dirty, no-good Dems sacked Gary Hart over something similar. Same thing with John Edwards and later Anthony Weiner.    But y’all keep pretending God is on your side, lol. 
    • CardinalBacker
      End Property Tax At 65?!

      By CardinalBacker · Posted

      I hear what you’re saying, BUT… that hammers the hell out of poor people and the ones with multiple properties don’t eat any more than the poor ones. In fact, you’d basically just be taxing a lot of peoples’ EBT payments. The government  can’t get ahead by taxing what they’re already borrowing to give to people.    I think well off people should pay more… but the scale as it exists is broken.    For the sake of argument, my mom’s house in Groves is valued at $125k. 2/1/1 on a slab.  Her tax bill is $850/year. Without exemptions, her bill would be 3200. It’s right on JCAD’s website. The problem is this…. If someone tries to rent out an identical house, they’d expect to get, what… $1200/month? If you take into account that homeowners/windstorm/flood is a minimum of another $2k per year, you’d need $5k a year just to cover the taxes and insurance. That’s four months (1/3 of the year) just to cover those costs, not counting a potential mortgage payment. But then everybody cries about how expensive rents are… you can’t tax the hell out of non-homestead property to make up for gifts given to homeowners in the form of big tax cuts. It just doesn’t work.    Ten acres in Lumberton? I’ve got a buddy with 10 acres in Lumberton on HWY 69. Prime property… it’s his retirement plan. Sale it one day and cash in. The CAD decided that it no longer qualifies for a special use valuation (timber) and stripped his “exemption.” His 2023 tax bill jumped from $25 to $22,000…. It’s insane.  
    • navydawg31
      Nederland is open, Barrow Resigns

      By navydawg31 · Posted

      I’m curious what happened… they aren’t even in full pads yet. 
    • TradenupBH
      Lamar Baseball 2024

      By TradenupBH · Posted

      They’re going to have win almost all remaining games and get finals of tournament to think about an at-large. When LU was in the WAC, Grand Canyon got an at-large after New Mexico St came out of nowhere to win conference tournament. Grand Canyon had a dang good resume that year. It can happen, but resume wise isn’t in their favor.

  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...