The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled to restrict the ability of state and local governments to seize and sell homes of individuals with unpaid property taxes. The ruling stemmed from a case involving Geraldine Tyler, a 94-year-old woman in Minnesota whose property was seized by Hennepin County. The court deemed the practice unconstitutional, violating the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. The ruling protects property rights and prevents potential homelessness and loss of savings for individuals, particularly seniors. This decision has implications for property tax collection policies across the country.
In a recent ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously decided to restrict the ability of state and local governments to seize and sell homes of individuals who have unpaid property taxes. This ruling came after a case involving Geraldine Tyler, a 94-year-old woman in Minnesota who had her property seized by Hennepin County due to outstanding taxes. The court deemed this practice unconstitutional, violating the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause, which prohibits the government from taking private property without compensation for public purposes. The ruling has broader implications for similar practices carried out by state and local governments across the country.
Chief Justice John Roberts, speaking on behalf of the court, emphasized that individuals should not be forced to give more to the government than what they owe. In Tyler's case, her home was sold at an auction, earning $40,000 while her tax debt amounted to approximately $15,000. The court recognized that such a scenario results in the taxpayer contributing significantly more to the public treasury than necessary. The ruling is considered a significant victory for property rights, protecting individuals, particularly seniors, from potential homelessness and loss of savings.
The ruling sheds light on the issue of property tax collection in Minnesota and similar policies in other states. Currently, when a property owner fails to pay property taxes for five years, the state assumes full ownership of the property, allowing counties to sell it or use it for public purposes. The remaining funds, after covering expenses, are allocated to the local school district, city, and county, without reimbursement to the previous owner. Tyler's case highlighted the unfairness and unconstitutionality of this practice.
Moving forward, Hennepin County and other affected jurisdictions will need to align their procedures with the Supreme Court's ruling. The county's representative expressed the intention to collaborate with the Minnesota Legislature to establish a process that complies with the court's decision. Tyler's victory not only protects her rights but also sets a precedent for property owners facing similar situations across the United States.
Advertisement
Facebook
Whatsapp
