Introduction
The Tyler v. Hennepin decision from the U.S. Supreme Court has significantly altered the legal framework surrounding tax sale investing, particularly with regard to property rights, equity theft, and investor liability. Investors navigating this evolving legal terrain must understand the implications of the ruling and the rapid state-level legislative responses.
A Case That Changed Everything: The Background of Tyler v. Hennepin
The case originated in Minnesota in 2017, challenging the constitutionality of the state’s tax foreclosure process. The Supreme Court unanimously held that Hennepin County’s practice of retaining surplus equity after selling a foreclosed property constituted an unconstitutional taking without just compensation.
This ruling clarified that although tax sales themselves remain constitutional, any process resulting in government retention of surplus equity violates the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause unless just compensation is provided.
What Is “Equity Theft”? How Tyler Reframed the Debate
"Equity theft" refers to a process where a taxing authority keeps the entire value of a property sold in foreclosure, even when the property's value exceeds the tax debt owed. The Tyler ruling reframed this as a constitutional issue of unjust enrichment by the state, rather than merely an administrative tax collection matter.
This pivotal clarification forces states to consider how they treat surplus proceeds after a tax foreclosure and sale, requiring mechanisms to return that surplus to the property owner.
Supreme Court Ruling Summary: Unconstitutional Takings and the Requirement for Just Compensation
The Tyler decision underscores three critical legal principles for tax sale investors:
- A tax sale that results in government retention of surplus equity is an unconstitutional taking.
- States must implement a mechanism for property owners to claim surplus proceeds.
- The ruling does not prescribe a specific remedy, leaving it to states to craft compliant procedures.
Why Tax Sale Investors Must Understand This Landmark Decision
The decision has direct implications for:
- Investor risk assessments
- Legal exposure under joint state actor theories
- Bidding strategies where title transfer may later be contested
Investors in states with processes similar to pre-Tyler Minnesota must now consider potential legal liabilities.
Stay informed about these changes by keeping up with our latest blog posts and signing up for our tax sale investor newsletter.
State-Level Fallout: How Tyler Is Reshaping Tax Sale Laws Across the U.S.
Multiple states have enacted or proposed post-Tyler legislative changes, with Colorado, Arizona, and Alabama leading the way:
Colorado’s Response:
- Eliminated automatic treasurer’s deeds.
- Implemented a follow-up deed sale with surplus proceeds accessible to former owners.
Arizona & Alabama:
- Enacted similar measures requiring judicial review or auctions post-redemption.
Other States:
- Louisiana is pursuing a constitutional amendment.
- Nebraska and New Jersey are seeing major litigation and legislative scrutiny.
New Judicial Trends: Surplus Funds, Deed Sales, and “Shadow Equity Theft”
Some states have responded to Tyler by creating overly limited or burdensome processes for recovering surplus proceeds. The Pacific Legal Foundation refers to this as "shadow equity theft," suggesting that these processes may still violate due process or the Takings Clause.
This raises future litigation risks in states adopting short claim windows or complex administrative procedures.
Investor Liability Concerns: Nebraska and New Jersey’s Joint State Actor Rulings
Two pivotal cases—Continental Resources v. Fair (Nebraska) and a parallel New Jersey Supreme Court decision—held that investors may be jointly liable for just compensation as state actors.
Key takeaways:
- In Nebraska, the investor who acquired title was held liable under the theory of joint state action.
- In New Jersey, the investor was deemed to perform a traditional public function (tax collection), thus subject to liability.
Investors in these states must factor potential retroactive liability into their bidding strategies.
Impacts on Tax Sale Bidding Strategies and Risk Assessment
Post-Tyler, investors should:
- Assess local foreclosure laws before bidding.
- Consider how surplus is handled under current statutes.
- Evaluate the risk of litigation or class action liability.
- Price-in legal exposure when determining maximum bids.
Understanding the “Nelson v. NYC” Precedent and Why It Matters Again
States have begun citing the 1956 Nelson v. New York case, which upheld a 20-day surplus claim period as constitutionally sufficient. While cited favorably in Tyler, this precedent is now under scrutiny in new legal challenges that may attempt to overturn or limit Nelson.
Pacific Legal Foundation’s Beaman case directly contests Nelson's continuing validity, arguing such short claim windows are inadequate under modern due process standards.
Class Actions and Settlements: The Financial Repercussions Facing Local Governments
Recent class-action settlements show the financial stakes:
- Minnesota: $109 million settlement post-Tyler.
- Michigan: $38 million settlement.
- More litigation is pending nationwide.
These developments pressure legislatures to update their tax sale statutes or face increasing fiscal liability.
Looking Ahead: What’s Next for Tax Sale Investing Post-Tyler?
Several Supreme Court petitions may shape the future of the industry:
Turner v. Jordan:
- Addresses federal jurisdiction in state tax matters.
- May clarify federal court authority in tax foreclosure claims.
Beaman Case:
- Brought by Pacific Legal Foundation.
- Targets the validity of Nelson v. NYC.
- Challenges “shadow equity theft” laws in five states.
Watch these cases for possible Supreme Court review, which could further reshape tax foreclosure jurisprudence.
Risk Mitigation for Investors: How to Stay Protected Amid Legal Uncertainty
To reduce exposure:
- Stay informed about state legislative changes.
- Monitor ongoing litigation.
- Use licensed legal counsel in uncertain jurisdictions.
- Incorporate legal risk premiums into bidding strategies.
Stay Informed and Ahead of Change with Tax Sale Resources
The Tyler v. Hennepin decision has created a dynamic legal landscape for tax sale investors. As states react and courts interpret new standards, the risk profile of tax deed and lien investing has shifted. Understanding these shifts is crucial for strategic investment decisions.
Want to stay ahead of evolving tax sale laws and invest with confidence?
Sign up for our newsletter for expert insights, updated state-by-state guides, and the most reliable data in the industry.
🎧 Subscribe to the Tax Sale Insiders Podcast
📺 Watch on YouTube for the latest interviews and updates.
