The landmark precedence of Tyler v. Hennepin County continues to draw debate and various interpretations in excess equity cases throughout the country, including an instance of foreclosure and surplus proceeds deprivation in Isabella County, Mich., that is heading to the U.S. Supreme Court.
When a Michigan home was auctioned for significantly less than its valuation and later re-sold for the assessed value, lower courts ruled that the former owner was entitled to the surplus proceeds. The Supreme Court announced on Oct. 3 that it would hear the case and determine if a fair foreclosure took place.
The case, Pung v. Isabella County, centers on Timothy Pung, who bought a home in Michigan in 1991 for $125,000. After his death, a dispute arose regarding whether the home qualified for Michigan’s Principal Residence Exemption, which allows eligible homeowners to reduce their property taxes by exempting them from paying an 18-mill school operating tax. Isabella County claimed a tax delinquency of more than $2,200, which was later determined not to be owed, but the county still foreclosed on the property.
The property was auctioned for $76,008, despite being assessed at $194,400. The buyer quickly resold it for a total closer to the the assessed value, while the county kept the entire auction amount, leaving the Pung estate without roughly $118,000 in equity.
The Pung estate sued, claiming violations of the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause, as well as the Eighth Amendment. A district court found that a taking occurred but limited damages to the surplus proceeds of about $73,000 after taxes. A circuit court agreed, stating that property owners are entitled only to these surplus proceeds and dismissed the Eighth Amendment claim.
The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case to address two main questions: whether the takings clause demands compensation based on the fair market value of the property instead of just auction surplus, and whether losing significant home equity in this situation constitutes an “excessive fine” under the Eighth Amendment.
The Pung estate argued that damages in takings cases should reflect the full equity lost, not just the difference between owed taxes and auction price, emphasizing that the auction price was lower due to the conditions of the tax sale. The estate also claimed that losing more than $118,000 for a disputed $2,200 tax debt was grossly disproportionate and met the criteria for an excessive fine.
The county government countered, citing a previous Supreme Court ruling that the auction price reflects true value and that requiring fair market value could disrupt tax foreclosure processes and title stability.
Depending on the Supreme Court’s ruling, the case could clarify whether courts should consider damages narrowly as surplus proceeds or broadly as fair market value, impacting future takings claims. Associate Justices Neil Gorsuch and Ketanji Brown Jackson highlighted in their concurrent opinion in Tyler that excess forfeiture might also be considered punitive and subject to Eighth Amendment review.
For more stories and continuing coverage from The Legal Description, please visit the Excess Equity Watch library.