Posted on by Clover

Post Tyler Update

Interested in getting an update on how the town is handling Farmer’s case in light of Tyler!!

What is happening in Massachusetts in light of the Supreme Court ruling on Tyler in May??

Here’s your update:

We are awaiting scheduling for Mediation in our Federal Case against the town. The town is amenable to mediation but has not given an indication of a settlement they would find acceptable.

As for the Eviction Case  currently in the Appellate Division of the MA District Court, which we are handling Pro Se: The Town is trying to remove us from the property without first having made restitution for the unconstitutional taking and other actions, but the town has agreed to stay this action in hopes that the mediation in the federal court provides a successful resolution.

 

14 Replies to “Post Tyler Update”

  1. We have offered a settlement proposal that would provide all money due for back taxes etc. from the sale of part of the property and then the town would return the other 4 parcels. 

    The farm is on five lots that straddle the Town/County line. The case against Bolton is in regards to just the parts of these five lots that are in Bolton. Our proposal to the town which we hope they will finally now accept in the wake to the Tyler decision, is also the same as that from the response to the land court:
     
    “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.”
     
    We have been trying to sell Lot 1 since 2016 but the Town withheld the already approved permits, (because of back Taxes) confounding that and all further sales. We feel that the second greatest injustice, in this case and the genesis of the illegal taking, is that municipalities have a perverse incentive to not resolve the tax issues, withholding permits allows them to artificially drive down the sales price or prevent a sale entirely, at which point they gain the property and the equity as a windfall for the town.
     

    Reply

  2. Even though the Land Court and legislature have done nothing to fix this problem yet, we hope Bolton has come to its senses, since the Tyler decision.

    Where will the Town get the money to compensate Farmer for the Equity? Are they going to sell the property or will there need to be a Town Meeting Vote to approve the expenditure and acquire the property according to MGL Chapter 40, section 14 and Chapter 44, section 7? Our proposal would not require the townspeople to come up with more money, the taking was not supposed to cost the town money (especially not without a vote) but just to settle back taxes without an Unconstitutional Windfall.      

    “In keeping with the respect with which our society regards the private ownership of property, the long standing policy in this Commonwealth favors allowing an owner to redeem property taken for the nonpayment of taxes.” Town of Lynnfield v. Owners Unknown, 397 Mass. 470, 473–474 (1986). Moreover, “[t]he purpose of those provisions is not to provide municipalities with a method of acquiring property for municipal purposes without paying the owner of the property fair compensation as in eminent domain proceedings. The redemption provisions were enacted by the Legislature to provide municipalities with a mechanism for the prompt collection of delinquent real estate taxes.” Id. at 474; City of Boston v. James, 26 Mass.App.Ct. at 630 (the only legitimate interest of a town in seeking to foreclose rights of redemption is the collection of taxes due on the property, together with other costs and interest).
     

    Reply

  3. We proposed the same option as a solution to our current situation and a way for the town to avoid this problem going forward in our Citizens Petition at 2023 Bolton Town Meeting

    “…sale of the smallest undivided portion of the parcel(s) prior to foreclosure to recoup delinquent taxes and collection costs. If after foreclosure, but prior to a public sale, the Town desires to retain a tax title property for Town Purposes it shall authorize such according to MGL Chapter 40, section 14 and Chapter 44, section 7….”

    Full text and backstory at:
    https://nashawaytrailalpacas.com/stop-home-equity-theft/

    Our Citizens Petition was defeated, 24 to 94 at 2023 Town Meeting,  We believe mainly because of the misleading representations by the selectmen and Town Counsel who said they were not going to comment but did so anyway.

    see hour 2:25: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IyRiueSNqyg

    Reply

  4. We assume you have seen the Globe article about Christopher Perry. The state tax foreclosure law is unconstitutional. So why is it being enforced? – The Boston Globe

    Perry’s letter and 5 attachments: https://nashawaytrailalpacas.com/farrell-v-holliston/

    Perry Letter:
    “I would request that the Land Court issue a blanket order, upon receipt of this letter, which apprises each Land Court municipal claimant, in every tax lien foreclosure proceeding presently or previously pending in the Land Court, that any judgment obtained by it on or after May 26, 2023, which awarded  absolute title” or any other similar award which impliedly or expressly awards home equity profits in violation of Tyler, is null, void, void ab initio and of no legal force and effect.”

    Land Court response:
    “If a municipality or other plaintiff in a tax foreclosure case seeks to foreclose on a tax title, the law permits this to occur,” the court’s statement read. “Any resulting risk of liability, including for compensation owed to the former owner, is for the municipality or other plaintiff to consider and assess in proceeding.”
     
    ” It also made clear that the court “is constrained in that it can only address issues raised in the context of a case” adding, “The court is not now planning to impose any administrative orders or a moratorium on tax title foreclosure cases.”

    Perry while on Dan Rae 1040 WBZ mentioned that these Clouded Absolute Titles could be challenged for years to come.  https://www.iheart.com/podcast/1002-nightside-with-dan-28654279/

    “Since the law under which proceedings have been taken is “unconstitutional…” any judgment or order entered,  is “void” and can be “questioned collaterally…” In Re Neilson, 131 U.S., at 182.”

    The Land Court had left the door open, even before Tyler, to hear the 5th Amendment argument affirmed by the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision.

    “An interested party must file such a petition within one year of the entry of the judgment sought to be vacated, unless that party alleges a violation of its rights to substantive or procedural due process.” Worcester v. AME Realty Corp., supra.

    Reply

  5. Towns like Bolton and companies like Tallage may need to be concerned not only that they will owe restitution for Unconstitutional Takings but that their Absolute Titles may be clouded and/or that they only possess Color of Title to these foreclosed tax title properties and their foreclosure judgements could be vacated in Land Court.

    Reply

  6. On May 25, The U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Tyler v. Hennepin County, 143 S.Ct. 1369 (2023). The unanimous opinion squarely addresses the legal issue in Case No. 4:23- CV-40004-ADB and underpinning the instant case, holding that the government may not foreclose and take the entire value of property worth more than its encumbering tax debt. The Court rejected the notion that state law could be used to sidestep the 5th Amendment’s requirement that just compensation be paid when the government completes a taking. Under these holdings, it is clear that the Massachusetts tax foreclosure system is unconstitutional on its face and as applied to the Appellant and Land Court (Docket No. 19 TL 001139)

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *