Posted on 04/27/2023 2:42:56 PM PDT by nickcarraway
?? Well, at least they are starting to be open that they see us as serfs.
If Kagan decides the wrong way, can Obama get a do over?
If it is unconstitutional, is it too late to have capital punishment for naughty bureaucrats?
They better hurry.. Geraldine isnt getting any younger.
Of his inability to find a similar case, Thomas later said, "That's perhaps because [the statute] was never applied in the way that you suggest."
Or he DID look, there aren't any, but rather than admit that he claims he 'didn't look'. How bad would the answer have to be to hide it with 'the dog ate my legal research' in front of SCOTUS??
In 2010, Geraldine Tyler, who was in her early 80s, vacated her condominium in Hennepin County, Minnesota, after a series of local events, including a nearby shooting, left her wanting a safer environment. She was ultimately unable to afford both her new rent and her condo’s property taxes, racking up a $2,300 overdue bill. Local officials added $13,000 in interest, penalties, and assorted fees. They then seized her home, sold it at auction for $40,000, and pocketed the remaining $25,000 surplus.
Seems to me I have seen this in the news before. Then there was also a charge of racism? Some distant relatives involved now because they can smell some money.
There is more to this story.
We now have a government run by highwaymen and privateers. If the SC rules against them, I imagine it might only be because nobody cut them in on a big enough share of the spoils.
Either he didn’t look, in which case, he’s a lazy idiot. Who doesn’t come overprepared to the Supreme Court. Who would search for a precedence from the Middle Ages, unless you had exhausted more relevant examples?
Its fun when you get a lawyer to tank his own case.
The Government is committing theft by any reasonable definition.
I also expect that if they can’t keep the profits then they will just put the homes they foreclose on for sale for the owed tax amount. They won’t even try to get what it is worth just to spite the homeowner.
So I would say it is better to sell before they take things away.
Would he have done better to have ignored precedence, and talked about “living documents,” and penumbras?
There are plenty of instances where they "legally" do that.
“They better hurry.. Geraldine isnt getting any younger.”
Her heir’s if any will be around for awhile.
In Florida they sell the debt. The homeowner then has something like three years to redeem it and to pay something like 18% interest.
Its gross state oveereach. If we believe in private property and ownership and such. It would be far more reasonable to work something out than take her property and then make a profit selling it. Most of what she owed the govt stskced on as penalties so its far more.
In this case govt needs to be slapped down as its acting in a tyrannical fshion when it doesn’t have to.
And in fact this case could have been avoided altogether if local government dealt with rising crime in her area effectively.
Then what?
They are generally sold at public auction, so that a fair market price can be had. Otherwise the clerks at the county assessor's office would be real estate magnates.
Agree with you. They shouldn’t take the property. In principle I say they shouldn’t tax people’s homes at all (though in this case it was a second home so to speak) but the amount owed would, in any other instance, be a “small claims case” - judgement could be entered and a lien placed. The state would eventually recover when the property was sold. And interest and fees should be reasonable; related to actual costs and prevailing market rates.
From what I could tell, the case emanates from a unique aspect of the foreclosure process under Minnesota law.
Under normal circumstances in most states, the property owner is entitled to keep any equity in the property that remains after a bank or tax authority seizes it in a foreclosure and pays off the expenses associated with seizing and selling it. In effect, the bank or government can't make a profit off the transfer.
Under Minnesota law, there are many points during the foreclosure process when the property owner can intervene on his or her behalf to remedy their default -- and they are even given an opportunity to pay off the debt under a 5 or 10 year period. At a specific point in the process in Minnesota -- after the debtor has refused to avail herself of any of these remedies -- it ceases to be a "foreclosure" and effectively becomes a property abandonment process. The Minnesota statutes governing the abandonment process date back to the 1880s when it was apparently common for farmers to abandon their Minnesota farms and move west to the Dakota territories and settle on new land given to them under the Homestead Act.
In this case, the Federal courts simply ruled that the foreclosure/abandonment process was governed by Minnesota law. Importantly, the courts ruled that the sale of the condo was not a violation of the "Takings Clause" for a clear legal/technical reason — in that the debtor no longer had any ownership claim on the property after they passed the specific point in the Minnesota process where it went from a "foreclosure" to an "abandonment."
See Post #18. The case is more comnplex than a simple foreclosure, and there’s a good reason why the plaintiff who lost her property in this “foreclosure” process hasn’t prevailed at any point in the trial or appeal process up to now.
“If it is unconstitutional, is it too late to have capital punishment for naughty bureaucrats?”
I think that’s up to the citizens.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.