A unanimous U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Tyler v. Hennepin County that seizing home equity beyond what is owed in taxes violates the Fifth. Image Credits: Reuters,
A property tax bill of roughly $2,300 eventually cost Geraldine Tyler far more than the amount she owed. The 94-year-old Minnesota woman lost her Minneapolis condominium after unpaid taxes, interest and penalties accumulated over several years. Hennepin County sold the property for $40,000 and kept the money left after settling Tyler’s tax debt, according to the US Supreme Court . In 2023, the dispute reached the Supreme Court, which ruled that the government could not keep the surplus value of her home. Supreme Court also noted that Tyler purchased a one-bedroom condo in Minneapolis in 1999 and lived there for many years. As she aged, she moved to a senior living facility in 2010. By 2015, the original tax liability of about $2,300 had grown to roughly $15,000 with interest and penalties. Hennepin County then took ownership of the condo under Minnesota’s tax-forfeiture system and sold it for $40,000, enough to cover the outstanding debt.
Tyler’s case became an important test of what happens when a government takes property to recover an unpaid tax bill. The dispute was not over whether the county could collect the taxes, but whether it could keep more than Tyler owed. The U.S. She continued to own the condo after moving out, but the property taxes went unpaid.
Hennepin County on May 25, 2023. It also noted that Minnesota itself had historically recognised a homeowner’s right to surplus proceeds before changing its law in 1935.
What the Supreme Court decided According to the Legal Information Institute , the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Tyler v. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the Court, said the county could take Tyler’s property to satisfy the tax debt but could not use that debt as a basis for taking additional value belonging to her. A later William & Mary Law Review article examined Tyler’s case in the broader context of tax-foreclosure practices and the loss of home equity when governments sell homes for unpaid taxes. Tyler challenged the arrangement in court, arguing that keeping the surplus violated the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause, which prevents the government from taking private property for public use without just compensation. She also raised a claim under the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause. Her case initially failed. A federal district court dismissed it, and the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upheld that decision. The appellate court reasoned that Minnesota law did not recognise Tyler’s right to the surplus proceeds after the forfeiture. The Supreme Court later agreed to hear the case. The Court pointed to a long history of property law recognising an owner’s interest in the value remaining after a government debt has been satisfied. The impact of the case went beyond Tyler’s one-bedroom condo. The Supreme Court’s decision brought more attention to what happens when a property is worth far more than the taxes owed on it. In Minnesota, the ruling led to guidance for counties on dealing with extra money left over after tax-forfeiture sales, as well as changes and further discussion around the state’s tax-forfeiture rules. The decision did not mean governments could no longer collect unpaid property taxes or take action against properties with outstanding debts. Instead, it focused on what happens after the debt has been covered. In Tyler’s case, the county was entitled to recover what it was owed, but the court found that keeping the remaining value of the property raised a separate constitutional question.
