We're the bad guys
If you're not a tax nerd like yours truly, or even if you are, you may not have read about a case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court in which a county in Minnesota essentially stole $25,000 from an elderly woman and claims it's justified in doing so. The case was argued before the Court this week. The excellent SCOTUSblog explains:
Geraldine Tyler, a 94-year-old grandmother, lost her Minneapolis condo when she failed to pay the property taxes for several years. Tyler does not dispute that Hennepin County could foreclose on the $40,000 property and sell it to obtain the $15,000 in taxes and costs that she owed it. But she argued that the county violated the Constitution when it kept the $25,000 left over after the property was sold. After roughly 100 minutes of debate on Wednesday, a majority of the justices seemed inclined to agree with her.
Let's hope she wins. But while we await a decision, let's ponder the fact that our own State of Oregon, led by its fearless attorney general, Ellen Rosenblum, went out of its way to jump up and argue that the state should be allowed to keep the woman's money.
This is what Oregon stands for? This is what Rosenblum does all day? For shame.
I don’t think Ellen has a strong enough mind to join this on her own. I think there’s a cabal of sorts behind her decisions.
ReplyDeleteShe signed it. But yes, this speaks for an entire arrogant Oregon PERS bureaucracy. Taxation with a vengeance.
Delete
ReplyDeleteAs if Oregon isn't already extorting us enough. Where's Jesus when you need the greedy money changers tossed out onto the street?
Ellison’s involvement in anything doesn’t sit well with me.
ReplyDeletekeeping the tax debt is one thing. But there is just no plausible argument that the state should keep the remainder. shame on them.
ReplyDeleteAt least US DOJ was on the right side: The Biden administration filed a “friend of the court” brief in which it agreed with Tyler that the county’s actions violated the takings clause.
ReplyDeleteThat said, when you look at government powers exercised against property elsewhere, the county’s position is not that crazy — the feds and many states will gladly relieve you of your property without even charging you, much less getting a conviction, and the feds have consistently upheld those forfeiture statutes. They don’t have to give you back ANYTHING. So, in this case, where the condo owner had no equity at all, it does seem less extreme to say that, once the property owner has refused to pay or sell for long enough to actually get foreclosed, they’ve given up all rights to the proceeds.
The result that feels right at a gut level (that homeowner keeps the excess above the arrears) is going to lead to further litigation about when the government chose to sell, did they act reasonably in getting a fair prices, etc. All I can say is that it’s good to be a 94 year old grandma when seeking merciful treatment from our august justices.
Doesn't Oregon have term limits for the attorney general? She is in her third term. I would have thought two was enough.
ReplyDeleteThe Attorney General is not a constitutional officer (unlike Governor, Sec of State and Treasurer who all have constitutional term limits). A term limit could be added by simple statute if Oregon's political machinery favored it (don't hold your breath).
Delete