Posted on 04/26/2023 2:46:13 AM PDT by linMcHlp
Where the hell are the Millies and the Zeros with their magic and precious “GoFundMe” page to help this old lady out?
The taxes weren't paid for five years. During that time, all kinds of warnings were mailed and served on that property and apparently they were ignored.
I'm not on the government's side, but neither am I on the side of an irresponsible property owner.
My answer to that ‘wizened’ decree by the eighth is “just where in the hell are there any land-rush homesteads available and which one did this woman hitch up her buckboard and horse and make the rush to grab, ‘abandoning’ her titled property?
Democrats love to talk about our Constitution as a ‘living, evolving’ document and then turn around and use lame excuses like this to allow leftist government to use its power to seize private property without benefit of having a complete claim against the entire value of the property.
I’m not buying it.
Because they have the ‘power’ to run up whatever bills they say they incurred in collecting back taxes and penalties doesn’t mean it’s right.
Your post does touch on an important distinction between two different types of "conservative" judges: originalists and textualists.
An originalist like Antonin Scalia would look at this case and apply this question as part of his legal approach: "How would the authors of the U.S. Constitution apply the original founding principles of this nation to the case?"
A textualist like Clarence Thomas would apply this question: "I'm not going to try to decipher what the authors of the U.S. Constitution would have thought about this case. What did the plain language of the applicable statute and/or Constitutional provision mean when it was drafted?"
At some point the plaintiff in a case has to be seen as an incompetent misfit who had every chance in the world to remedy a situation amicably under the letter of the law but refused to do so.
One would hope when you are 94 and ‘incompetent’ you feel differently.
Yeah -the Founders would be rolling over in their graves if they knew that a person’s bought and paid for property could be confiscated for not paying taxes for the ‘privilege’ of owning something...
Thurday, May 25, 2023When 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.
She won! SCOTUS unanimously slapped down MN & Hennepin County:
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.