Natalia Chi
of supreme court On Thursday, the state unanimously ruled in favor of a 94-year-old Minneapolis woman because she kept the full $40,000 when the county sold her condo because of small unpaid taxes. , gave her another chance to get her money back.
Judges ruled that Hennepin County, Minnesota, violated Geraldine Tyler’s constitutional rights by seizing a woman’s property without paying her “due compensation.”
“The county had the authority to sell Tyler’s home to recover unpaid property taxes, but it could not use the tax liability as a stepping stone to confiscate more than the estimated amount.” Chief Justice John Roberts said in a letter to the court.
Tyler, who now lives in an apartment for seniors, paid $2,300 in unpaid taxes, plus $15,000 in interest and fines when the county took ownership of her one-bedroom apartment in 2015. didn’t pay the dollar. The county said she did nothing to keep Ms. Tyler. The residence and apartment were sold the following year.
According to the Pacific Law Foundation, a nonprofit public interest law firm focused on property rights, Minnesota allows about 12 local jurisdictions to store surplus funds resulting from these types of transactions. It is one of the states and the District of Columbia. Tyler, Minnesota v. Tyler in Hennepin County Supreme Court.
“Today’s ruling is a big victory for American property rights,” said PLF attorney Christina Martin, who defended the case in court. statement. “This ruling confirms that property rights are fundamental and do not depend solely on state law. reveals.”
At least 8,950 homes were sold in those states between 2014 and 2021 for unpaid taxes, and former owners received little or nothing, according to Pacific Legal.
Other states include Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Oregon and South Dakota, according to the group.
The court said Tyler could have refinanced his mortgage to pay his taxes, enrolled in a tax plan, or sold the property and kept what was left over after paying off his debt. dismissed the county’s claim.
A lower court sided with the county before the judges agreed to intervene.
