duodialectic

[duodialectic]

Tyler v. Hennepin County and disagreeing with a unanimous Court

The unanimous (and quick and glib) disposal of Tyler v. Hennepin County disappointed me a little this term. To be honest, I felt as though the County's arguments held more weight, though obviously SCOTUS disagreed. It seems to me perfectly reasonable that a state, to remedy a property tax debt, could take the title of that property to make itself whole. In the general case of a creditor foreclosing on property, I agree that they aught to be required return the surplus, but I think a state is different, and should be treated differently.

Imagine a situation exactly like Tyler's, rather than a condo it was a small homestead right next to a park. The county takes the title, calls the debts square, and decides to merge the property into the park. The Court seems to suggest that in a case like this, the county would have to have the property appraised and then pay Tyler the difference. It argues this result follows from the fact that:

In collecting all other taxes, Minnesota protects the taxpayer’s right to surplus. If a taxpayer falls behind on her income tax and the State seizes and sells her property, “[a]ny surplus proceeds . . . shall . . . be credited or refunded” to the owner. . So too if a taxpayer does not pay taxes on her personal property, like a car.

It goes on to say that until the 1930s, Minnesota had the same rules for property. It then cites Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid (bleh) for the proposition that "property rights cannot be so easily manipulated." So the argument follows that, even in the case where the county doesn't sell the land, but keeps it (as it is entitled to by law), it should be required to pay out of pocket the difference between the debt and what some appraiser comes up with. Because (and this is the heart of the opinion, in my view)

Minnesota may not extinguish a property interest that it recognizes everywhere else to avoid paying just compensation when it is the one doing the taking.

My contention is, why not? It may not seem the most just, but, I don't see how the 5th amendment requires Minnesota to treat all property rights the same. The opinion cites some history which I find rather academic, and the Chief's breezy manner doesn't help him here. It's a strange and admittedly icky feeling system, but, shouldn't that be worked out in the Minnesota legislature, not in federal court? Tyler has no property interest in the surplus value, and thus is not entitled to any of the profits beyond the debt. No taking occurs.

In sum, while unfair, I still don't really think Minnesota's scheme (and a scheme it is) is unconstitutional. At least under the Takings Clause. Maybe there's an excessive fines argument that will move me, but I haven't heard one yet, and it's certainly not in Gorsuch's concurrence.

-- R. M. H. "The acme of judicial distinction means the ability to look a lawyer straight in the eyes for two hours and not hear a damned word he says." - John Marshall