![]() ![]() So we also look to "traditional property law principles," plus historical practice and this Court's precedents…. 4th 185, 190 (CA6 2022) (Kethledge, J., for the Court) ("he Takings Clause would be a dead letter if a state could simply exclude from its definition of property any interest that the state wished to take."). Otherwise, a State could "sidestep the Takings Clause by disavowing traditional property interests" in assets it wishes to appropriate. For that, the Court draws on "existing rules or understandings" about property rights. The Takings Clause does not itself define property. The question is whether that remaining value is property under the Takings Clause, protected from uncompensated appropriation by the State. It may also seize and sell property, including land, to recover the amount owed… Here there was money remaining after Tyler's home was seized and sold by the County to satisfy her past due taxes, along with the costs of collecting them. In collecting these taxes, the State may impose interest and late fees. for which they receive compensation in the protection which government affords." County of Mobile v. Such taxes are not themselves a taking, but are a mandated "contribution from individuals. States have long imposed taxes on property. The Takings Clause, applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, provides that "private property be taken for public use, without just compensation…. The question presented is whether this constituted a taking of property without just compensation, in violation of the Fifth Amendment…. Instead of returning the remaining $25,000, the County kept it for itself. Hennepin County, Minnesota, sold Geraldine Tyler'shome for $40,000 to satisfy a $15,000 tax bill. Here are some key excerpts from Chief Justice John Roberts' majority opinion: It makes it harder for states to avoid takings liability. In addition, the holding that states cannot just redefine property rights at will has important implications for other property rights issues. Most obviously, the jurisdictions that currently authorize home equity theft-some twelve states and the District of Columbia-will no longer be allowed to do so. While the Supreme Court decision left some notable issues unresolved, it nonetheless sets a significant precedent. This broad agreement may be because the case combines traditional conservative and libertarian interest in property rights with left-liberal solicitude for the interest of the poor, the elderly, and minorities-groups that are particularly likely to be victimized by home equity theft. An ideologically diverse range of groups also filed amicus briefs supporting Tyler. In this case, however, the oral argument made clear that both conservative and liberal justices were highly skeptical of the government's position. Takings issues often split the justices along traditional right-left lines. The unanimous nature of the decision is noteworthy. Importantly, it also concluded that state law is not the sole source of the definition of property rights under the Takings Clause, and therefore state governments cannot seize private property without compensation simply by redefining it as the state's property. Today the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that such practices qualify as takings requiring the payment of "just compensation" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The County then kept the entire $40,000 for itself, as Minnesota law allows. Geraldine Tyler, the plaintiff in the case, is a 94-year-old widow whose home, valued at $40,000, was seized by Hennepin County after she was unable to pay off $15,000 in property taxes, penalties, interest, and fees. ![]() Hennepin County, an important Takings Clause property rights case addressing the issue of "home equity theft," a legal regime under which local governments can seize the entire value of a property in order to pay off a much smaller delinquent property tax debt. ![]() This morning, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Tyler v. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |