Posted on 05/26/2023 11:28:04 AM PDT by EBH
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Thursday in favor of a 94-year-old Minneapolis woman, giving her a new chance to recoup some money after her county kept the entire $40,000 when it sold her condominium over a small unpaid tax bill.
The justices ruled that Hennepin County in Minnesota violated the constitutional rights of the woman, Geraldine Tyler, by taking her property without paying "just compensation."
"The County had the power to sell Tyler's home to recover the unpaid property taxes. But it could not use the toehold of the tax debt to confiscate more property than was due," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court.
Tyler, who now lives in an apartment building for older people, owed $2,300 in unpaid taxes, plus interest and penalties totaling $15,000, when the county took the title to her one-bedroom apartment in 2015. The county said she did nothing to keep her residence and the apartment sold the next year.
"Today's decision is a major victory for property rights in the United States," Christina Martin, the PLF attorney who argued the case before the Court, said in a statement. "This decision affirms that property rights are fundamental and don't depend solely on state law. The Court's ruling makes clear that home equity theft is not only unjust, but unconstitutional."
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
Great news. Now,all they have to do is declare “civil asset forfeiture” to be unconstitutional.
It's called theft. She should only be responsible for the $2,300.
Yep… and the TAKING of money (simply because it is a “large” quantity of cash) from individuals who have committed NO CRIME is reprehensible and certainly UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
The USSC didn’t “side with a woman”. It struck down the pernicious and evil gov policy of stealing people’s equity in tax sales. All of the people. All of the gov’s. They did so because it was too much of a clear, obvious and corrupt violation of the 5th A.
The headline is intentionally watered down to evade even hinting at constitutional supremacy and the gov’s routine disregard of citizens’ rights.
And it only took this poor 94 year old woman 8 years of litigation against the government and their unlimited resources to get them to recognize her so-called guaranteed, constitutional written in stone inviolable rights.
Some justice.
Oh, and she had to go through a pile of judges before the USSC, all of whom rubber-stamped the gov. actions.
To get that started, it would help if those in whatever layer or department of any gov that pull this kind of crap get arrested, processed, tried and convicted of grand theft and do real time in real jail/prison for it.
Have that happen a few times and the problem sorts itself out.
Then, towns, cities and counties find they work just fine without the stolen assets, because those assets never went to the town, city or county anyway, so ending it with a SCOTUS finding of unconstitutionality doesn’t even cause a ripple in the various abilities to serve their communities.
Good to know we still have some semblance of the Fourth and
Fifth Amendments.
St. George of Fentanyl
What we need, and what we will never get, are laws imposing prison sentences on government officials and the politicians who pass and enforce laws that violate constitutional rights.
Government is the enemy. It better watch the hell out. The natives are getting restless and upset with their g-ddamn overreach and abuse.
It's not that they should have won on merit, but I was aware that Minnesota has a unique process for this sort of property seizure that would justify the loss of the woman's total loss of equity. Minnesota doesn't process this type of seizure as a foreclosure, but as a property abandonment -- under an arcane state law that dates back to the 19th century when it wasn't uncommon for Minnesota farmers in financial distress to abandon their farms and migrate waste to stake new claims in the Dakota Territory. The intricacies of this process have been applied legally for more than 120 years, which seemed to explain why the plaintiff in the case had lost at every step in the appeal process.
Hope that doesn't mean she will be required to give the balance of her money to the apartment complex like nursing homes require.
Well, no.
Think of the scenario that would unfold if she wasn't responsible for covering the administrative costs associated with the seizure. That would mean someone who wants to sell their home can simply stop paying taxes on it ... and the municipal government would seize it and sell it without any fees, closing costs, commissions, etc. paid by the previous owner.
I'd consider this a Pyrrhic victory at best. State and municipal governments across the nation are simply going to amend their statutes so the government can pile more and more costs on top of the delinquent taxpayer in cases like this.
> Oh, and she had to go through a pile of judges before the USSC, all of whom rubber-stamped the gov. actions. <
And that’s the really disgusting thing. The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in favor of this woman. She was so obviously in the right that the conservative and the liberal justices all came together. Not a single dissenting vote.
Yet that obviousness could not be seen in the lower courts.
you said ...” laws imposing prison sentences “
I think there are laws on the books.
violation of rights under color of law
How do we get it enforced?
And what about the oath to protect and defend?
Who can charge them? Who has standing?
You are right, the lower courts dismissed her case saying there was no injury?!? F the 8th circuit.
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.