9-0 SCOTUS (by don [PA]) May 25, 2023 3:49 PM|
9-0 SCOTUS (by Ken [NY]) May 25, 2023 3:55 PM
9-0 SCOTUS (by Mapleaf18 [NY]) May 25, 2023 6:57 PM
9-0 SCOTUS (by Allym [NJ]) May 25, 2023 9:38 PM
9-0 SCOTUS (by don [PA]) May 25, 2023 10:43 PM
9-0 SCOTUS (by S i d [MO]) May 26, 2023 9:05 AM
9-0 SCOTUS (by Ken [NY]) May 26, 2023 9:50 AM
9-0 SCOTUS (by Barb [MO]) May 26, 2023 3:13 PM
9-0 SCOTUS (by gevans [SC]) May 26, 2023 5:54 PM
9-0 SCOTUS (by BRAD 20,000 [IN]) May 27, 2023 4:42 PM
Click here to reply to this discussion.
Click Here to send this discussion to a friend
9-0 SCOTUS (by don [PA]) Posted on: May 25, 2023 3:49 PM
Tyler v. Hennepin County decided today. Huge win for property rights. County took and sold a 94 year old lady's property for a relatively small tax delinquency......and kept all of the proceeds, well in excess of what she owed. --73.141.xxx.xxx
9-0 SCOTUS (by Ken [NY]) Posted on: May 25, 2023 3:55 PM
Good news.My state has been doing exactly what that county in MN was doing,i wonder if it will change anything here,probably not --74.77.xx.xx
9-0 SCOTUS (by Mapleaf18 [NY]) Posted on: May 25, 2023 6:57 PM
Yep. NY just ignores SCOTUS rulings. --172.58.xxx.xx
9-0 SCOTUS (by Allym [NJ]) Posted on: May 25, 2023 9:38 PM
don, PA, is she getting her money back? Are the bad guys going to get orange jumpsuits?
9-0 SCOTUS (by don [PA]) Posted on: May 25, 2023 10:43 PM
Ally--She will, the question is what about the thousands that were screwed over by these policies in the past.
Gov't officials don't go to jail for violating constitutional rights because they have Qualified Immunity, which is a high barrier. --73.141.xxx.xxx
9-0 SCOTUS (by S i d [MO]) Posted on: May 26, 2023 9:05 AM
This may have an interesting impact on tax lien sales, which I and several others on this board have done/do.
The concept is based on "unjust taking without fair compensation." I can't speak for every state, but the way Missouri works is if you don't pay your real property taxes by August of the following year, then the county collector offers up a lien on the property. Most of those are purchased by investors. The purchase cost must cover the past due taxes as well as all costs the collector has incurred for sending various notices and publications advertising the sale. The lien buyer must bid at least that much, but other bidders can offer more, called a 'surplus', and often liens on good properties will sell for way more than the actual amount owed.
Then there's a 1 year redemption period, during which time the owner can pay off the bid price of the lien plus 9% interest, which is only due on the amount equal to past due taxes and costs. But if they fail to do so and the lien buyer follows the correct procedure, then the lien buyer gets ownership of the property and a Collector's Deed which extinguishes the delinquent tax payers interest.
What makes this process profitable is that you can get a piece of property worth tens of thousands of dollars for a just a few bucks, relatively speaking. It seems like that might trigger the unjust taking without fair compensation part of this ruling. I believe the way it works today is the surplus from the lien bid is kept by the county, similar to what happened in this case. However, even if the surplus was given to the former owner, they would still have lost a ton of value. Most "good" properties (worth $50K or more) will sell for somewhere around $10K-$20K... so right there the process doesn't bring anywhere near fair market value.
I'm not 100% sure on the surplus, but the very fact that investors are looking to "steal" a property for such a low price almost tells me that the proper way to do this would be just to have an open auction for the property that provides immediate clear title and ditch the whole redemption period. That would probably come much closer to the fair market value than the tax lien process.
Anyway, I read the full SCOTUS decision, and it was worthwhile to see how the justices went as far back as a 13th Century portion of the Magna Carte all the way up through modern time to get their basis for their ruling. Fascinating stuff for real estate geeks!
9-0 SCOTUS (by Ken [NY]) Posted on: May 26, 2023 9:50 AM
Sid,what you are suggesting is basically how NY does it,the county takes the property then has an auction and sells it for as much as they can get with no redemption period.Often they sell for way more than they owed in taxes.The way it is here is if it sells for less than taxes owed then there is nothing the taxing authority can do about it,maybe that will change.I am curious to see what happens here since we are in the middle of tax foreclosure sales right now.I would bet that not a single county in my state will actually make any effort to hold the proceeds for the people who lost there houses r send it to them as they should --74.77.xx.xx
9-0 SCOTUS (by Barb [MO]) Posted on: May 26, 2023 3:13 PM
The issue in MO is that the surplus goes to the school district, not the county collector.
Also, doesnít it take 3 years of unpaid taxes to actually make it to the courthouse steps? It isnít one year of taxes, it is many years of taxes --149.76.xxx.xx
9-0 SCOTUS (by gevans [SC]) Posted on: May 26, 2023 5:54 PM
They also had an interesting ruling on "waters of the US". Basically, the EPA has taken the stance that ANY water connecting to navigable waterways constitutes "waters of the US". This meant a ditch could allow the EPA to control your property. SCOTUS ruled this is not so. --69.80.xx.xxx
9-0 SCOTUS (by BRAD 20,000 [IN]) Posted on: May 27, 2023 4:42 PM
In Indiana the foreclosed owner can claim the amount paid by a buyer over the taxes due.
An investor can buy that claim for max 25% of the overage.
Click Here to send this discussion to a friend
Report discussion to Webmaster