Tyler v. Hennepin County
598 U.S. 631 (2023)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A government's retention of the surplus value of a property seized and sold to satisfy a tax debt, beyond the amount of the debt and costs, constitutes a taking of private property for public use without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
Facts:
- Geraldine Tyler owned a one-bedroom condominium in Hennepin County, Minnesota.
- In 2010, Tyler moved out of her condominium and into a senior community.
- Following her move, the property taxes on the condominium went unpaid.
- By 2015, the unpaid taxes, along with interest and penalties, accumulated to a total of approximately $15,000.
- Acting under a Minnesota forfeiture statute, Hennepin County seized the condominium.
- The County sold the condominium for $40,000.
- From the sale proceeds, the County used $15,000 to satisfy Tyler's tax debt.
- The County retained the remaining $25,000 surplus for its own use, with no procedure for Tyler to recover it.
Procedural Posture:
- Geraldine Tyler filed a putative class action lawsuit against Hennepin County in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, alleging violations of the Takings Clause and Excessive Fines Clause.
- The District Court granted the County's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
- Tyler, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed the District Court's dismissal, holding that Minnesota law did not recognize a property interest in the surplus proceeds from a tax-foreclosure sale.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted Tyler's petition for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the Eighth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a government's retention of the surplus equity from a tax foreclosure sale, after satisfying the tax debt and costs, violate the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Roberts
Yes, a government's retention of surplus equity from a tax foreclosure sale violates the Takings Clause. The principle that a government may not take more from a taxpayer than she owes is deeply rooted in English law, dating back to the Magna Carta, and was widely adopted in the United States. The surplus value of a home after a tax sale is a form of private property protected by the Fifth Amendment. A state cannot simply legislate away a traditional property interest to avoid its constitutional obligation to pay just compensation. The Court's precedents, such as United States v. Taylor and United States v. Lawton, affirm a taxpayer's right to the surplus. Nelson v. City of New York is distinguishable because the law there provided a procedure for the owner to recover the surplus, unlike Minnesota's scheme. Furthermore, Minnesota law recognizes a debtor's right to surplus in other contexts, such as mortgage foreclosures and personal property tax sales, and it cannot selectively extinguish that right when the government itself is the one conducting the taking. The argument that Tyler abandoned her property fails because the failure to pay taxes does not equate to the surrender of all rights in the property, especially the financial interest in its value beyond the tax debt.
Concurring - Justice Gorsuch
The Court correctly holds that Tyler has plausibly alleged a violation of the Takings Clause. However, the lower courts also erred in their analysis of the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause. The District Court incorrectly applied a 'primary purpose' test; the Excessive Fines Clause applies if a statutory scheme serves 'in part to punish,' not only if punishment is its primary goal. The fact that the scheme does not punish everyone (e.g., when a property is worth less than the debt) is legally irrelevant to whether it is a fine. Finally, while culpability can indicate punishment, a scheme can be punitive even without a culpability requirement if it serves other goals of punishment, such as deterrence, which the lower court acknowledged this scheme does.
Analysis:
This decision significantly strengthens property rights by affirming that home equity is a cognizable property interest protected by the Takings Clause. It effectively invalidates state and local laws, often termed 'home equity theft' schemes, that allow governments to retain the full proceeds from tax foreclosure sales. The ruling prevents states from circumventing the Takings Clause by statutorily redefining traditional property interests out of existence. Going forward, governments conducting tax foreclosures must provide a mechanism for property owners to recover the surplus value remaining after the tax debt and associated costs are satisfied.
