Supreme Court gets it right

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

Unanimous court decision striking down a really unfair law. There are more like this out there and hopefully this decision goes a long way towards ending them.

Also, yes, the Supreme Court is a legitimate body:

Supreme Court sides with grandmother who lost home, equity because of back taxes

Several other states have laws that allow counties to keep the value of a property after foreclosure, a result that can have a big effect on seniors.

www.usatoday.com

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Unanimous court decision striking down a really unfair law. There are more like this out there and hopefully this decision goes a long way towards ending them.

Also, yes, the Supreme Court is a legitimate body:

Supreme Court sides with grandmother who lost home, equity because of back taxes

Several other states have laws that allow counties to keep the value of a property after foreclosure, a result that can have a big effect on seniors.

www.usatoday.com

I saw that. I’m surprised those kinds of laws are still in effect. In Colorado, the purchaser at a tax sale will bid exactly what is due and the taxpayer then has a right to redeem, which they often can’t do. If no redemption, the tax-sale purchaser keeps the property including excess value. Thats okay.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Unanimous court decision striking down a really unfair law. There are more like this out there and hopefully this decision goes a long way towards ending them.

Also, yes, the Supreme Court is a legitimate body:

Supreme Court sides with grandmother who lost home, equity because of back taxes

Several other states have laws that allow counties to keep the value of a property after foreclosure, a result that can have a big effect on seniors.

www.usatoday.com

I am not disagreeing with your conclusion, just how you got there. It would be like saying congress successfully completed a roll call vote so it is a functional governmental body. This case seemed like an obvious slam dunk, getting it right doesn't really prove too much.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Unanimous court decision striking down a really unfair law. There are more like this out there and hopefully this decision goes a long way towards ending them.

Also, yes, the Supreme Court is a legitimate body:

Supreme Court sides with grandmother who lost home, equity because of back taxes

Several other states have laws that allow counties to keep the value of a property after foreclosure, a result that can have a big effect on seniors.

www.usatoday.com

It’s ridiculous that that was even a question.

 

[mcmurtry66]

I saw that. I’m surprised those kinds of laws are still in effect. In Colorado, the purchaser at a tax sale will bid exactly what is due and the taxpayer then has a right to redeem, which they often can’t do. If no redemption, the tax-sale purchaser keeps the property including excess value. Thats okay.

Much of that shit depends on judicial vs non judicial. I think the deficiency element is also bs

 

[IU_Hickory]

The moneyed interests probably didn't care about the results of this case. If in a vacuum, I have no doubt they can make good decisions (especially when it is something that isn't politicized).

In politically charged cases or where there is interest from their wealthy benefactors, I wouldn't so sure of fair results.

 

[Hoopsdoc1978]

How in tarnation did that even reach the Supreme Court? That’s ridiculous.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

I saw that. I’m surprised those kinds of laws are still in effect. In Colorado, the purchaser at a tax sale will bid exactly what is due and the taxpayer then has a right to redeem, which they often can’t do. If no redemption, the tax-sale purchaser keeps the property including excess value. Thats okay.

Those are getting challenged too (Cook County does the same). If you have someone this has happened to, let me know.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

I am not disagreeing with your conclusion, just how you got there. It would be like saying congress successfully completed a roll call vote so it is a functional governmental body. This case seemed like an obvious slam dunk, getting it right doesn't really prove too much.

It seems that way, yet most of these cases (maybe all?) lose at the district court and intermediate appellate level. There was no guarantee this wouldn't go 9-0 the other way.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

It’s ridiculous that that was even a question.

In Oregon, a judge dismissed a suit involving an 11-year-old orphan who inherited the property from her deceased mother and didn't pay the taxes. Judge said she should have made her constitutionality claim in the foreclosure process. It's crazy what legal gymnastics judges will go through to find for the government.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

"Just another 9-0 MAGA court ruling." Sen. Chuck "I'm Insanely Partisan" Shumer

 

[CO. Hoosier]

In Oregon, a judge dismissed a suit involving an 11-year-old orphan who inherited the property from her deceased mother and didn't pay the taxes. Judge said she should have made her constitutionality claim in the foreclosure process. It's crazy what legal gymnastics judges will go through to find for the government.

I argued a similar case and won it in the Colorado Supreme Court in a split decision. My argument centered on the notion that strict compliance for the collection of property taxes is necessary because local government budgets require dependable numbers and have strict time lines. After the decision was announced the legislature (Republican at that time) rewrote the statutes to make the ability to obtain refunds and abatements much easier.

 

[Spartans9312]

The moneyed interests probably didn't care about the results of this case. If in a vacuum, I have no doubt they can make good decisions (especially when it is something that isn't politicized).

In politically charged cases or where there is interest from their wealthy benefactors, I wouldn't so sure of fair results.

I didn’t realize IGW had any kids. It all makes sense now

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

I argued a similar case and won it in the Colorado Supreme Court in a split decision. My argument centered on the notion that strict compliance for the collection of property taxes is necessary because local government budgets require dependable numbers and have strict time lines. After the decision was announced the legislature (Republican at that time) rewrote the statutes to make the ability to obtain refunds and abatements much easier.

Yes, that's the stock response whenever you challenge something the govt labels a tax in the litigation.

Taking home equity above and beyond the amount of the very clearly delineated and documented tax, penalty, and interest, though, is not a "property tax."

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Yes, that's the stock response whenever you challenge something the govt labels a tax in the litigation.

Taking home equity above and beyond the amount of the very clearly delineated and documented tax, penalty, and interest, though, is not a "property tax."

Except that home equity is not taken. It goes to the investor who paid the taxes, interest, and penalties.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

Except that home equity is not taken. It goes to the investor who paid the taxes, interest, and penalties.

That's not the Oregon case.

As for the Colorado scenario, I'm hoping that gets struck down too. But you're right that there is an extra layer of argument over whether the practice becomes constitutional by running it through a private actor.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

That's not the Oregon case.

As for the Colorado scenario, I'm hoping that gets struck down too. But you're right that there is an extra layer of argument over whether the practice becomes constitutional by running it through a private actor.

What’s a better way to collect property tax? In Colorado, as I believe all other states, there is no personal obligation to pay property tax. The government is limited to the property. Contrast that with federal income tax or federal estate tax. The IRS will file liens on property or garnish income to collect taxes, and if that isn’t enough, will go after you for the deficiency.

 

[mcmurtry66]

What’s a better way to collect property tax. In Colorado, as I believe all other states, there is no personal obligation to pay property tax. The government is limited to the property. Contrast that with federal income tax or federal estate tax. The IRS will file liens on property or garnish income to collect taxes, and if that isn’t enough, will go after you for the deficiency.

They have an earnings tax in the city here that if you miss court they’ll issue a warrant and lock ya up

 

[CO. Hoosier]

They have an earnings tax in the city here that if you miss court they’ll issue a warrant and lock ya up

Yeah! Debtor’s prison.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

Yes, that's the stock response whenever you challenge something the govt labels a tax in the litigation.

Taking home equity above and beyond the amount of the very clearly delineated and documented tax, penalty, and interest, though, is not a "property tax."

Capital gain from ... property?

 

[IUCrazy2]

Except that home equity is not taken. It goes to the investor who paid the taxes, interest, and penalties.

That seems awfully predatory.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

What’s a better way to collect property tax? In Colorado, as I believe all other states, there is no personal obligation to pay property tax. The government is limited to the property. Contrast that with federal income tax or federal estate tax. The IRS will file liens on property or garnish income to collect taxes, and if that isn’t enough, will go after you for the deficiency.

So foreclose and take the tax. Don't steal the equity.

 

[Stuffshot]

It’s ridiculous that that was even a question.

Golden Rule is: he that has the gold makes the rules.

 

[UncleMark]

So foreclose and take the tax. Don't steal the equity.

COH has defended this because that was his job. That seems to make him think it was the right and proper thing to do. Weird.

 

[Stuffshot]

So foreclose and take the tax. Don't steal the equity.

What? You mean people are surprised that local governments screw people? Of course they screw people.

This is exactly why we have the Civil War Amendments..

 

[CO. Hoosier]

So foreclose and take the tax. Don't steal the equity.

That’s how any foreclosure works. Ya can’t foreclose on just part of a house.

The property owner still has a right of redemption, but that has to expire because there must be finality.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

That’s how any foreclosure works. Ya can’t foreclose on just part of a house.

The property owner still has a right of redemption, but that has to expire because there must be finality.

No it’s not. If the bank forecloses on your $100k house for a $1000 debt, they can’t keep the surplus equity.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

No it’s not. If the bank forecloses on your $100k house for a $1000 debt, they can’t keep the surplus equity.

Well, isn’t that only true if the foreclosure sale yields more than the amount due? Property tax sales work the same way. But if the amount bid is equal to the amount owed, the owner loses the equity if the owner does not redeem.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

Well, isn’t that only true if the foreclosure sale yields more than the amount due? Property tax sales work the same way. But if the amount bid is equal to the amount owed, the owner loses the equity if the owner does not redeem.

This entire thread is about the situation where the sale yields more than the amount due. It's the premise of the entire case.

On the issue of a tax sale to third parties, if the govt cannot take the surplus value over and above the amount owed, I'm not sure it can give that right to a third party for guaranteed tax revenue. Sounds an awful lot like taking a property right (to surplus value in a foreclosure sale) for a public purpose. If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck . . .