Posted on 04/26/2006 6:13:11 PM PDT by HoosierHawk
WASHINGTON, April 26 — The Supreme Court ruled, 5 to 3, today that Arkansas state officials were wrong to take away the home of a Little Rock man for nonpayment of real estate taxes.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
It could have been MUCH worse. Most failed revolutionaries hang.
They also placed a notice in the local paper that the property was being sold for unpaid taxes so that the owner or someone who knew them could see it and respond.
However, after reading the actual opinion rather than just the times article, I have to agree that the state had other simple options, but failed to exercise them.
For example, the opinion mentions that an additional letter could have been delivered by regular mail that would not require a signature and therefore the letter would have actually been left at the premises rather than just leaving a note that the letter was at the post office to be picked up.
The state should have done that, even though I kind of doubt that it would have made any difference. The property owner's wife (they were separated) and daughter were living at the address and didn't bother to notify the owner that on two different occasions the post office had attempted to deliver registered letters from the state. Is it really likely that she would have forwarded him a letter sent by regular mail? It appears that his estranged wife and daughter didn't care if ignoring a registered letter from the state meant trouble for Mr. Jones. They only cared when the eviction notice was delivered.
There were two things that I think should have been done that were not done that could have resulted in Mr. Jones being notified.
The property should have been posted with signs warning of the impending foreclosure due to unpaid taxes. This motivates tenants to make sure the property owner is notified because they can see that it directly effect them.
The second thing that should have been done was to contact the lending company which had been paying the taxes from escrow up until the loan was paid off. That company likely had an updated address and contact information for Mr. Jones, since they had been receiving payment from him.
Considering his particular situation where the taxes had been paid by the lender for 30 years, it's understandable that he simple didn't think about having to pay them separately, and had forgotten to update his address with the State.
Although it seems strange that the State didn't have updated records of his address for other tax purposes. Does Arkansas not have an income tax, or were his wife and daughter just not consistent in forwarding mail to him?
It seems like the State made the reasonable assumption that their attempts to contact Mr. Jones were being ignored rather than being delivered to the wrong address.
Apparently the post office thought it was a valid address. The current occupants were the family of Mr. Jones. Mail was being received at that address.
However, reality can get a bit more complicated than what might seem reasonable, so the state does need to take more steps before taking such drastic action as foreclosing on someone's house.
PDF of the actual opinion.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-1477.pdf
Right ~
That's why he didn't get a pardon.
Yes, traditionally the losers were rounded up, the requisite number summarily executed, and the remainder sold into slavery or farmed out to the landed nobles for use as field hands.
Thanks for the link.
However, on certified mail if you'll look at the label there's a block they check (that you pay for) that provides for "restricted delivery", and that is going to be to the addressee, by name, ONLY. See: http://pe.usps.gov/text/dmm300/503.htm#wp1063590 at "e" which states: "If restricted delivery of Certified Mail to the addressee or someone named by the addressee in writing is requested, endorse the mail "Restricted Delivery." This service is available only for articles addressed to individuals by name."
If the letter wasn't addressed to the estranged wife, or the daughter, then they wouldn't have been able to sign for it anyway.
I can envision an infernal machine here. The county wants to maximize the number of seizures for non-payment of taxes. So they send all their tax notices as Certified Mail with Restricted Delivery. This increases the opportunity for returned pieces which can be interpreted as willful disregard of notice of due process.
Within whatever time period is provided, they move ahead with a condemnation.
Looks like that is what happened here.
I'd add to the Supreme Court decision the thought that not only did the county have some other relatively simple options to use, they also had some relatively simple options to NOT use.
The idea that one can forfeit one's property because of delinquent taxes makes property 'ownership' a sham.
Only if you believe that you don't have any responsibility to pay taxes.
I think our taxes are way too high. I think our taxation system needs to be drasticly overhauled and the intrusiveness of our government significantly reduced. However, I do choose to be part of this society despite that and that means accepting my responsibility to pay such taxes. Tax laws are rather pointless if they can't be enforced.
If you have a govenment that has the ability to tax, it has to have the ability to collect those taxes, or you don't have a government you have anarchy.
If you really believe that this makes property ownership a sham, you aren't going to be satisfied with any government that has the ability to collect taxes, and hold those accountable that don't pay them.
ping
How did this even rise to becoming a federal issue? Due process?
One can argue on both sides Robert E. Lee's position before during and after the war. But it is pretty much a fact that Ms. McCarthy admitted to giving up state secrets. She should be punished to the full extent of the law. I think a Jonathan Pollard example should be made of her.
I don't accept your premise. It certainly is not the "only" solution available, nor is your assertion that the only alternative is anarchy.
Do you own your property or do you lease if from the government?
Better question should be: Should you have ownership of your property or should you just lease it from the government?
There are many alternatives to taking a citizen's property.
In my county, my house will go up for auction 90 days after the final due date, approximately June first.
Then the county can take property in excess of $100k for just a few hundred dollars of unpaid taxes.
The punishment far exceeds the 'crime', wouldn't you agree?
Pretty much what the decision hinged on. They tried to send two certified letters to the house, but since he didn't live there, he couldn't sign and they went undelivered, and a small notice in the legal notices section of a local paper didn't suffice either. If they'd just sent a normal letter it would have gotten to him.
If he was still living in the same state, then they were already sitting right on his state tax returns, too - and his address must have been written on these. This would be in their very own state taxpayers database.
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.