The Supreme Court on Wednesday sympathized with a 94-year-old woman who was unable to claim the surplus of her home sale after her condo was confiscated by the government.
Geraldine Tyler lost her condo in a dispute with Hennepin County, Minnesota, after she owed $15,000 in unpaid taxes.
She had purchased it in 1999 but moved into a senior living facility after a dispute with a neighbor in 2010. After moving out, she did not pay taxes on her property.
The county foreclosed on the condo and sold it for $40,000 — but kept all the money instead of returning the $25,000 left over after the initial $15,000 debt was satisfied.
Ms. Tyler lost in lower court, prompting her to take the dispute to the justices.
It took at least four of them to vote in favor of hearing her case, and on Wednesday a majority of them appeared to side with her.
Justice Elena Kagan questioned whether a $5 million house could be sold to satisfy a $5,000 debt — with the millions in surplus being kept by the government.
“Are there any limits on that?” she said.
Similarly, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. stressed the increased interest people have in property — even over money.
“Land is kind of unique because it is the source on which wealth, particularly early wealth, was created,” he said. “Our cases bear this out where they talk about property, you know, land being essential to the preservation of liberty.”
Christina Martin, the lawyer representing Ms. Tyler, said Hennepin County can’t give any limits on when a government would cross the line in what it’s collecting from a delinquent taxpayer in response to Justice Kagan’s inquiry because “there is none,” in the county’s view. Ms. Martin said that position has led to a farmer in Nebraska losing an entire farm to satisfy a small debt.
“I think the Constitution puts those limits,” she said. “The county is taking private property without just compensation.”
Ms. Martin argued the county keeping the $25,000 surplus violated the Constitution’s Takings Clause, which prohibits the government from taking private property for public use without just compensation.
At issue is Minnesota’s law that lets the government take a property to satisfy a debt — and then keep the surplus. About a dozen other states operate similarly, but most of them typically return a surplus to the taxpayer once all debts are satisfied.
Lower courts ruled against Ms. Tyler, saying she didn’t have an interest in the surplus — and that the state law had been on the books since 1935, ruling there’s no unconstitutional taking of the property due to the statute.
Neal Katyal, the lawyer representing Hennepin County, said Ms. Tyler had told the county she wanted “nothing to do with it,” arguing she had no interest in the condo for five years.
“This is a classic case of abandonment,” said Mr. Katyal.
He told the justices that counties like Hennepin “don’t want to be real estate agents of last resort.”
The Biden Justice Department argued that the keeping of the surplus from the condo sale in this case amounted to a taking of Ms. Tyler’s property — but the feds wouldn’t argue on behalf of Ms. Tyler’s other claim that the government’s keeping of her extra funds amounted to a fine in violation of the 8th Amendment.
The case is Tyler v. Hennepin County, Minnesota, and a decision is expected by the end of June.
• Alex Swoyer can be reached at aswoyer@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.