Skip to main content

The Supreme Court, equity theft and the Pung family

 


In Isabellas County, Michigan, the Pung family lost its ranch style home due to a mere $2,242 in disputed taxes. 

The country government sold the place for $76K at a public auction. The buyer then flipped it for $195,000. 

I'm a recovering anarcho-capitalist, so I will try not to go on too much of a bender about how much this sucks.  But boy is the world of property taxation and enforcement offering up a delicious cuba libre to someone who is trying to get with the twelve steps, here!!!

In May 2023, U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Tyler v. Hennepin County that home equity theft is unconstitutional. The Court determined that seizing excess value over a tax debt violates the fifth amendment's taking clause.  

So was Pung simply a straightforward application of Tyler? No such luck. 

Lower courts essentially gave the Pungs the difference between the tax debt and the public auction value. But the Pungs asked the Supreme Court to affirm that (as that radical 'flip' would indicate) the auction value was well below true market value and they were entitled to the latter. 

The Supreme Court refused to do this. Justice Alito (pictured above)  writing for the court said the tax sale value will be treated as the market value for purposes of Tyler so long as the tax sale is "fairly conducted in light of our country's history of tax sales." The case was remanded for litigation over that caveat.

Justice Thomas concurred in the opinion, but wrote a lengthy separate opinion that makes it clear on what lines he thinks the Pungs' counsel ought to continue to litigate the matter. And he writes, "regardless of when exactly the history of tax foreclosure sales can justify a departure from [otherwise applicable rules], my initial impression is that it cannot do so in this case."  

Put a pin in this one. There is a need for reform on the tax foreclosure system inclusive of tax auctions. They are not the solution, they are part of the problem.  Continued litigation by the Pungs may yet bring us to such reform. 



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak...

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a maj...

A Quote from Parfit

Recently  I wrote a little about ethicist Derek Parfit. I've been doing further research on him since, and will now describe his Big Picture as I've come to understand it. Parfit believes that the western world only started taking ethical philosophy seriously (as a domain separate from theology) around the time Nietzsche declared that God was dead. There are only three possibilities, in terms of the God/morality issue: 1) You believe that God exists and that His commands define morality 2) You deny that God exists and, like Nietzsche, infer from this that in the absence of commands there is no right or wrong, or 3) You deny that God exists yet persist in believing and attempting to discern right and wrong. From a certain point of view there could be a fourth category, for people who believe that God exists but that His existence is irrelevant to morality, He doesn't issue commands at all, etc.  Still, from DP's perspective that sort of God ...