/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/bostonglobe/YFZ7CUY5HBTLK4TXUWQ4SJQ5HE.JPG)
In 2017, the city of Greenfield targeted Stephen Woodbridge’s property, which totaled almost 20 acres and included a rambling 10-room house, for unpaid taxes of a little less than $6,000.
Four years later, after making numerous complex and arcane court filings, the city succeeded in gaining legal ownership of a property that had been in the Woodbridge family for 70 years.
Woodbridge was quickly evicted, and the city sold his house and six surrounding acres for $270,000 at auction. The city added Woodbridge’s other 13 wooded acres to a contiguous city-owned park without compensating him.
‘Home equity theft’ in Massachusetts is the focus of federal lawsuit – The Boston Globe
What’s the Town of Bolton thinking?
Here is an excerpt from the Massachusetts Attorney General
“Knick also held that “the property owner has suffered a violation of his Fifth Amendment rights when the government takes his property without just compensation, and therefore may bring his claim in federal court under [42 U.S.C.] § 1983 at that time.” Id. at 2168. This creates a possibility that, after Tyler, a tax lien foreclosure under Chapter 60 could create liability under Section 1983 for the involved officials. While the amount of compensation for a taking is similar under federal and state law, see Woodworth v. Commonwealth, 353 Mass. 229, 231-32 (1967), Section 1983 allows a plaintiff to recover attorneys’ fees and costs, 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b), and may in some circumstances result in personal liability that cannot be indemnified under state law. See G.L. c. 258, § 9 (providing that indemnification is not available for willful acts that cause constitutional violations). Even if a cause of action may lie for recovery under Chapter 79, the availability of such an action very likely would not foreclose an action under Section 1983. Knick, 139 S. Ct. at 2171.
The AG’s Full Amicus Brief here
Property taxes must be paid, and it’s legal for governments to take property to pay an outstanding debt. However, when a debt-holder takes more than what’s actually owed that’s usually called theft, but in this context it’s endorsed by state law. Local governments take homes that have been in families for generations and leave people homeless over tax debts, merely small fractions of their property’s values. Allowing the taking of more than what is owed creates a perverse incentive to work against, not with, the homeowner to get the tax debt paid.
Of course, tax collection is considered an important municipal function in Massachusetts, but beyond being patently Unjust, Home Equity Theft is Unconstitutional under the United States and Massachusetts Constitutions. Ultimately, when governments take more than owed, they also take on an obligation to pay the former owners for the excess property value taken. Because victims of the tax foreclosure process can seek compensation in court, cities and towns that seize equity, to satisfy smaller tax debts and pad their revenue, are playing with fire. One day, they will have to account for their unconstitutional actions and pay back the people whose equity they stole, a lesson municipalities around the country are about to learn the hard way.
How much equity has the Town of Bolton stolen from delinquent taxpayers this year alone? Where is the money going to come from to make all these property owners whole? Will it be a Prop 2 ½ emergency override? Does the town have insurance against the bad legal advice we have relied on? Who signed off on these takings? It was not the Citizens at Town Meeting, was it the Selectmen or just the bureaucrats that we are rewarding with pay raises this year? All Town acquisitions of property should require a vote at Town Meeting even for tax title properties, especially if those acquisitions remove property from the tax base and do not generate the revenue the takings were intended to accomplish. Bolton must stop withholding permits preventing the sales of tax delinquent properties. Shouldn’t the decision, to take your neighbors home and “run them out of town”, rise to a Town Meeting level, not an automatic bureaucratic or executive session closed door hidden process? As of April 26th the Home Equity Theft issue is with the US Supreme Court, their opinion, expected this June, should end this practice. How will Bolton handle tax takings, when the law changes? Shouldn’t we do everything as a Town to help our residents, who are having tax troubles, instead of taking advantage of them. Article 13 on the May 1st Bolton Town Meeting Warrant, if adopted, would prevent withholding permits and would also sell the smallest portion of property possible to satisfy the tax debt returning excess equity to the owner.
For all the details about the SCOTUS action and the Citizens Petition click below
I humbly request and pray that the court order the release of the previously signed and approved permits for Parcel I (3e-33) and provide time to sell the property and redeem the tax titles. The town of Bolton has been at the same time demanding payment and withholding permits preventing the sale and payment of the back taxes on my farm and homestead. The farm is composed of five lots in two towns Bolton (Worcester County) and Stow (Middlesex County). The Town of Bolton has assessed their portion of these five lots at $375,000. The total back taxes and interest are approximately $60,000. The Town of Bolton is preventing me from selling and recovering equity by withholding signed approved permits and discouraging buyers, ostensibly for the purpose of recovering back taxes. There is no risk to the town to wait until I am able to sell and recoup the excess value beyond what is owed. On the other hand I will be irreparably harmed by the loss of my farm and homestead if I am not allowed to sell and redeem.
