Supreme Court To Decide Whether Gov Can Seize 94-Year-Old’s Home, And Keep The Profits

#27
#27
94-year-old grandmother Gets big Win at Supreme Court

'The taxpayer must render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, but no more,' said Chief Justice John Roberts in Tyler v. Hennepin County

The Supreme Court ruled in favor Thursday of a 94-year-old Minnesota grandmother who claimed that the state violated her constitutional rights when they seized her condo over an unpaid tax debt, then sold the property and kept all the sale proceeds — which were far above what she actually owed.

Geraldine Tyler owned a condo which Hennepin County seized as payment for approximately $15,000 in outstanding property taxes, penalties, interest and costs. The home was then sold for $40,000. Under the state's forfeiture laws, the county kept the surplus proceeds - in this case to the tune of $25,000.

"The Takings Clause ‘was designed to bar Government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole.’," the opinion stated.

94-year-old grandmother gets big win at Supreme Court
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gandalf, 85SugarVol, NorthDallas40 and 5 others
#28
#28
Franklin Pierce said:
94-year-old grandmother Gets big Win at Supreme Court

'The taxpayer must render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, but no more,' said Chief Justice John Roberts in Tyler v. Hennepin County

The Supreme Court ruled in favor Thursday of a 94-year-old Minnesota grandmother who claimed that the state violated her constitutional rights when they seized her condo over an unpaid tax debt, then sold the property and kept all the sale proceeds — which were far above what she actually owed.

Geraldine Tyler owned a condo which Hennepin County seized as payment for approximately $15,000 in outstanding property taxes, penalties, interest and costs. The home was then sold for $40,000. Under the state's forfeiture laws, the county kept the surplus proceeds - in this case to the tune of $25,000.

"The Takings Clause ‘was designed to bar Government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole.’," the opinion stated.

94-year-old grandmother gets big win at Supreme Court
Click to expand...

So how did this even get to the SC? Why did they even have to intervene?
 
  • Like
Reactions: tntar heel
#33
#33
BigOrangeMojo said:
Because the judicial system in MN is an outreach of the far left MN Democratic Party...

Same area that has voted for Ilhan Omar to represent them multiple times
Click to expand...

Except that you'd be wrong in this instance. Steven Colloton wrote the opinion in the Federal Court in MN. Appointed by Bush and strongly considered by Trump for SCOTUS. Jumping to conclusions makes you look stupid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: clarksvol00, Rasputin_Vol and EasternVol
#36
#36
Franklin Pierce said:
94-year-old grandmother Gets big Win at Supreme Court

'The taxpayer must render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, but no more,' said Chief Justice John Roberts in Tyler v. Hennepin County

The Supreme Court ruled in favor Thursday of a 94-year-old Minnesota grandmother who claimed that the state violated her constitutional rights when they seized her condo over an unpaid tax debt, then sold the property and kept all the sale proceeds — which were far above what she actually owed.

Geraldine Tyler owned a condo which Hennepin County seized as payment for approximately $15,000 in outstanding property taxes, penalties, interest and costs. The home was then sold for $40,000. Under the state's forfeiture laws, the county kept the surplus proceeds - in this case to the tune of $25,000.

"The Takings Clause ‘was designed to bar Government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole.’," the opinion stated.

94-year-old grandmother gets big win at Supreme Court
Click to expand...
I wouldn't call it a big win. Made it to the Supreme Court to get 25k?

bet she has to pay an income tax on that 25k, maybe with interest since the sale probably was generated a while ago if this made it to the SC.

lawyers will take their chunk too. she might have lost money.
 
#37
#37
LouderVol said:
I wouldn't call it a big win. Made it to the Supreme Court to get 25k?

bet she has to pay an income tax on that 25k, maybe with interest since the sale probably was generated a while ago if this made it to the SC.

lawyers will take their chunk too. she might have lost money.
Click to expand...

It's a big win for us peons. No, she shouldn't have to pay income tax on the money since it's a capital gain. Attorneys fees, good question but my guess is someone was backing her because it was a good case to get to the federal courts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman, volfanhill and EasternVol
#38
#38
hog88 said:
It's a big win for us peons. No, she shouldn't have to pay income tax on the money since it's a capital gain. Attorneys fees, good question but my guess is someone was backing her because it was a good case to get to the federal courts.
Click to expand...
Show me where she can buy another house for $40k? Her former house probably is appraised for $240k.
 
#40
#40
hog88 said:
I never said she could, I never inferred anything of the sort.
Click to expand...
I never implied that you did, but it wasn't a win for us peons. Hopefully, she can file a civil suit against the municipality and recoup what she had before.
 
#41
#41
VolStrom said:
I never implied that you did, but it wasn't a win for us peons. Hopefully, she can file a civil suit against the municipality and recoup what she had before.
Click to expand...

It was a win for us peons, now the city/county/state cannot steal our equity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 85SugarVol
#42
#42
VolStrom said:
I never implied that you did, but it wasn't a win for us peons. Hopefully, she can file a civil suit against the municipality and recoup what she had before.
Click to expand...
She’s 94 years old, man. Buy another house?

I know you like to yell at clouds, but c’mon. This was a good thing. The State got knifed today. We should all rejoice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol
#43
#43
VolStrom said:
I never implied that you did, but it wasn't a win for us peons. Hopefully, she can file a civil suit against the municipality and recoup what she had before.
Click to expand...

Recoup what? She got what was owed to her. She owed taxes on the house and was delinquent. She doesn't get a pass for that
 
#44
#44
volfanhill said:
Recoup what? She got what was owed to her. She owed taxes on the house and was delinquent. She doesn't get a pass for that
Click to expand...
How long ago did they sell her house? Since this went all the way to the Supreme Court, I'm guessing several years ago. My point is if she had her house confiscated and it was sold for $40k to settle a $15k tax lien and the current value is $200k+ and the state/county/city etc is only obligated to give her the $25k back she got royally screwed because she could never buy her house back for that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rasputin_Vol
#45
#45
VolStrom said:
How long ago did they sell her house? Since this went all the way to the Supreme Court, I'm guessing several years ago. My point is if she had her house confiscated and it was sold for $40k to settle a $15k tax lien and the current value is $200k+ and the state/county/city etc is only obligated to give her the $25k back she got royally screwed because she could never buy her house back for that.
Click to expand...
She lost her home bc she didn't pay. She should receive the difference plus interest. The home was no longer here so it increasing in value is not relevant.
 
#46
#46
volfanhill said:
She lost her home bc she didn't pay. She should receive the difference plus interest. The home was no longer here so it increasing in value is not relevant.
Click to expand...
Plus interest? What was the interest rate the last 5 years? What was the appreciation rate of housing over the same time? You're celebrating the fact that she gets the old value of money back. Yay, that's a win for her isn't it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rasputin_Vol
#47
#47
VolStrom said:
Plus interest? What was the interest rate the last 5 years? What was the appreciation rate of housing over the same time? You're celebrating the fact that she gets the old value of money back. Yay, that's a win for her isn't it?
Click to expand...
She didn't pay her taxes. I don't know what you think should happen. She deserved to have the city take her house. It's not like it was a surprise. I am happy she got money that was owed to her back. There is nothing else she deserves
 
#50
#50
As good a place as any to put this.

This happened to a buddy of mine several years ago, the local utility district ran sewer down his road to service a new subdivision being built. Even though his property wasn't annexed into the city like the subdivision property was he was still forced to connect to the new sewer line. He and several others living on that road fought it as far as they could but in the end were forced to connect. It was quite expensive for the connection fee, running the pipe to his house and connecting, he had to reroute his plumbing outlet from the back to the front. He was also required to demolish his septic tank. All in I want to bet it cost him close to 10 grand. Now he could afford it but what happens to people that can't? They were going to cut off his water if he didn't connect by a certain date.

$4,350 for a sewer hookup they didn’t ask for, but ‘anyone who is within 150 feet must connect’
 
  • Like
Reactions: ButchPlz
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top