Posted on 02/22/2026 5:03:01 PM PST by CFW
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case on Wednesday over whether tax foreclosure sales are constitutional.
Pung v. Isabella County [Michigan] involves the rights of a foreclosed upon homeowner to receive equity back when their home is sold over a tax foreclosure. The dispute comes between the Pung family and Isabella County, Michigan, over real estate taxes on a home the Pungs owned.
A judge determined that the Pungs owed about $2,200 in taxes and allowed the government to auction off their home for $76,000. An individual purchased the Pungs' home from the government and later sold it for $195,000.
The Pung family sued the government and claimed the sales price was far below the house's fair market value. Michael Pung, who brought the lawsuit against the county, argued the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment requires that he receive the monetary equivalent of the property that the state has taken from him.
(Excerpt) Read more at thecentersquare.com ...
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
SCOTUS ping!
Maybe Mr. Pong should have sold the home himself and paid his taxes.
Plus paid off anyone else he owes money to.
Isabella county… Dr Pol has his veterinarian practice there. Corrupt governments looking for money are everywhere I guess.
Instituting property taxes is declaring that all property belongs to government, and if you don't pay your rent (aka property tax) to the government they will assume possession.
Mission accomplished.
More evidence tat almost all governments don’t give a damn about the taxpayers $ - except that they want more of it.
> A judge determined that the Pungs owed about $2,200 in taxes and allowed the government to auction off their home for $76,000. <
Then the Pungs should have received $73,800. And that’s evidently what happened. So they will have an uphill fight here.
Property tax has always been around, long before Marx and Engels decided nobody should be able to own property. Was there ever a halcyon time when there were no property tax owed in America? Nevada for a time had something called Alloidal title, I think property owners could pay a one time property tax and be done with it.
“Then the Pungs should have received $73,800. And that’s evidently what happened”
I don’t know. They apparently have a pretty good argument (see below) given the case has reached the Supreme Court. SCOTUS only takes about 60 or so cases each term so apparently four justices thought the issue warranted briefing and a full hearing.
“However, the Pung family and Carson argued the government should owe payments based on a property’s fair market value rather than the value assessed during a foreclosure sale. They argue the county assessed the property’s fair market value to be around $200,000 despite selling it for less.
“The facts in this case where the subsequent purchasers turned around and sold it for that approximate value shortly thereafter speaks volumes to the underlying equity in this,” Carson said. “
> They argue the county assessed the property’s fair market value to be around $200,000 despite selling it for less. <
I’m just thinking about loud here. Let’s say the county pays the Pungs the $200,000, less the taxes they owe. Then the country is taking a risk it really shouldn’t be taking. Suppose, for some reason, the house doesn’t sell for near that price? It could happen.
The whole thing is an arbitrary, convoluted mess. Maybe the real estate tax should be replaced by bumping up the sales tax.
That is perhaps an argument to be made on the lines of moral responsibility. But its a terrible one, since:
I’m bewildered by why SCOTUS would take such a case, which on the face it is ridiculous. Brown-Jackson is the only Justice who could buy this argument.
Seems to me that the Plaintiffs would have a chance ONLY if they can show that the County failed to hold a public auction open to all bidders. Conceivably a crooked or incompetent County could sell a Property to insiders without an auction; or fail to notify the Owners; or publish the Sale in newspapers of record (usually in advance for three consecutive weeks depending on the State); or, change the auction date/place without notice; or, otherwise have requirements that discourage most bidders (like a huge deposit). But in the article, nothing like that is even alleged.
Tax Sales often go for less than the County’s assessed value for real estate taxes. The market and market value for property ON ONE PARTICULAR DAY, is never going to be as large as you can get for it if you have lots of time to find buyers who need time for financing, inspections, etc.
The origin of property tax is feudalism.
It was actually a form of income tax as it required payment in salable produce of the land. The taxable property was productive land. The home was not considered taxable since it was not necessary for production. Thus the “homestead” exemption in most states, although now it’s just discount on the value calculation.
So the modern property tax is a perversion of the original. Since we have income taxes at literally all levels, there’s no reason for a property tax. And modern property taxes are at far higher levels relative to income now then say just 60-70 years ago. Why? They are no longer considered only to be used for property protection but mainly education….meaning the maintenance of the Teachers Union.
No one in colonial America ever fought for that.
>>Suppose, for some reason, the house doesn’t sell for near that price?
then why did the govt appraise the house for that value? Why are they taxing based on what would be vastly inflated values?
Texas developed a solution for small amounts of property taxes owed, when a person 65 or older, disabled or widowed owed it.
Put a lien on the property, pay interest at a 5 % rate (set by the legislature), and collect on the lien when the property is sold in the future.
I do not know about property in Michigan, but property in Texas goes up, way up, over time.
Counties are not so desperate that they will steal a home over $2,200, if occupied.
Halcyon days?
Possibly future days in Florida:
https://floridaphoenix.com/2026/02/19/florida-house-passes-proposed-amendment-to-immediately-phase-out-property-taxes/
> then why did the govt appraise the house for that value? <
Great question! Too often these taxing agencies appraise a house at a high number, picking a number that they can defend, but just barely. Then you’ve got to go through a lengthy challenge process.
It’s crazy arbitrary, and really shouldn’t be allowed. I would prefer that it be replaced by some kind of sales tax.
Interesting historical background. Thanks for that.
Pacific Legal Foundation synopsis of the facts.
Thirty-five years ago, Scott Pung purchased a 3,000-square-foot house in Isabella County, Michigan. Turning the three-bedroom house into a home was Scott’s shot at the American Dream for himself and his wife and two children. Shortly after purchasing the home, Scott secured a tax exemption for a supplemental property tax. He could have never guessed that filing the paperwork for a tax exemption would start a chain of events that would put his family before the nine justices of the Supreme Court.
After Scott’s unexpected death in 2004 and the death of his wife in 2008, Scott’s son Marc took control of the house. Under Michigan law, the tax exemption continued automatically as long as family members lived in the home. Marc lived there with his wife and young child. No additional paperwork was required.
But local tax assessor Patricia DePriest saw things differently. Despite clear statutory language protecting the Pungs, she retroactively denied the exemption for several previous years, arguing that Scott’s heirs should have resubmitted paperwork.
The Pung family took their case to the Michigan Tax Tribunal, where an administrative law judge ruled in their favor. But DePriest wasn’t deterred and again denied the exemption. When asked during a subsequent hearing about the administrative law judge’s ruling that the family didn’t need to file additional paperwork, she replied defiantly: “I don’t care what he says; the law says that you do.”
DePriest reported the Pung home as delinquent over approximately $2,000 in taxes, penalties, and costs that the family never owed. Even though the County knew about the tax tribunal and a Michigan court case involving the exemption, the County began foreclosure proceedings to take the Pung home. In 2015, Isabella County seized the home—which it had assessed at nearly $200,000—and later sold it in a fire sale auction for only $76,000.
The County kept all the money and evicted Marc, his wife, and their young child from the family home.
When government takes more than it is owed to settle back taxes, it’s home equity theft. In 2023, the Supreme Court deemed the practice unconstitutional in Tyler v. Hennepin County, which PLF brought to the Court.
When the Pungs sued, the trial court held that the government violated the Constitution by taking more than it was owed. But rather than pay the Pungs for what had been wrongly taken, the court held that the County only had to hand over the windfall the government had taken at the Pungs’ expense—the surplus proceeds from a poorly run auction. The government should never have foreclosed on the Pungs to collect a debt that was improperly imposed. The Pungs deserve payment for what was taken—a $200,000 home minus any “debt.”
The Eighth Amendment also prohibits excessive fines, including destroying $118,000 in equity to collect $2,242 that was never owed in the first place. The penalty far outweighs any alleged wrongdoing.
Throughout this process, the estate of Scott Pung—administered by Marc’s uncle Michael—fought the County’s actions. First, they challenged them in the County’s tax tribunal, then in the state and federal courts.
Now the Supreme Court will decide whether Scott Pung’s heirs are entitled to the equity they had in their longtime family home.
Pung v. Isabella County was originally litigated and brought to the court by Phil Ellison, who has fought home equity theft in Michigan for more than a decade. PLF’s litigation team is working with Ellison and the Pungs in their fight for justice at the Supreme Court.
Property taxes are unconstitutional…period! In NJ they literally tried doubling the taxes in a few locations…then what? It’s legalized theft of property. Abolish property taxes!
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.