From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

There hasn't been a ruling yet but the Supreme Court heard a similar
case this term, Pung v. Isabella County, Michigan.

The facts are mind blowing. You tell me that the assessor wasn't being >vindictive.

https://www.michigannewssource.com/2025/10/taxed-seized-sold-and-sued-a-michigan-property-owners-2200-debt-that-gobbled-up-a-194000-home-heads-to-the-supreme-court/

This is the case in which a vindictive assessor refused to apply a state exemption the taxpayer was entitled to several years in a row. The
taxpayer's position was upheld both in administrative appeal and in
state court. Still, the assessor would not apply the exemption.

Taxpayer refused to pay the additional thousands of dollars in taxes for
not receiving the exemption and, eventually, the property was foreclosed
upon and sold at auction. Typically, because so few buyers qualify to
bid in a tax sale because one must settle in cash within hours and the
property may still be subject to judgment, tax sales bring in far less
than market value if the property were successfully marketed to
qualifying buyers who obtain mortgages.

That this case went all the way to the Supreme Court on principle is
hard to believe.

Taxpayer lost on whether the difference between price set at auction and "hypothetical" fair market value was a taking under the 5th Amendmet.
Note that the assessor's own market analysis of fair market value was
pretty close to what the property was sold for by the tax buyer months
later.

Taxpayer also lost on the question of whether the tax sale itself was punishment and an excessive fine under the 8th amendment.

I have no idea if there are other unresolved legal questions that could
still favor the taxpayer or if the taxpayer will finally cease
litigating.

Steve Lehto video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2EgTvNEKpQ
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2