Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-166_8n59.pdf
Page Number: 5

2 

TYLER v. HENNEPIN COUNTY 

Opinion of the Court 

if at the end of three years the bill has not been paid, abso-
lute  title  vests  in  the  State,  and  the  tax  debt  is  extin-
guished.  §§281.18, 282.07.  The State may keep the prop-
erty  for  public  use  or  sell  it  to  a  private  party.    §282.01
subds. 1a, 3.  If the property is sold, any proceeds in excess 
of  the  tax  debt  and  the  costs  of  the  sale  remain  with  the 
County, to be split between it, the town, and the school dis-
trict.  §282.08.  The former owner has no opportunity to re-
cover this surplus.

Geraldine  Tyler  is  94  years  old.  In  1999,  she  bought  a
one-bedroom condominium in Minneapolis and lived alone 
there for more than a decade.  But as Tyler aged, she and 
her family decided that she would be safer in a senior com-
munity, so they moved her to one in 2010.  Nobody paid the
property taxes on the condo in Tyler’s absence and, by 2015, 
it  had  accumulated  about  $2300  in  unpaid  taxes  and
$13,000  in  interest  and  penalties.  Acting  under  Minne-
sota’s  forfeiture  procedures,  Hennepin  County  seized  the
condo  and  sold  it  for  $40,000,  extinguishing  the  $15,000
debt.  App. 5.  The County kept the remaining $25,000 for 
its own use. 

Tyler  filed  a  putative  class  action  against  Hennepin
County and its officials, asserting that the County had un-
constitutionally  retained  the  excess  value  of  her  home 
above her tax debt.  As relevant, she brought claims under 
the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the Exces-
sive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment. 

The District Court dismissed the suit for failure to state 
a claim.  505 F. Supp. 3d 879, 883 (Minn. 2020).  The Eighth
Circuit  affirmed.  26  F. 4th  789,  790  (2022).    It  held  that 
“[w]here  state  law  recognizes  no  property  interest  in  sur-
plus  proceeds  from  a  tax-foreclosure  sale  conducted  after 
adequate notice to the owner, there is no unconstitutional 
taking.”  Id., at 793.  The court also rejected Tyler’s claim
under  the  Excessive  Fines  Clause,  adopting  the  District 
Court’s reasoning that the forfeiture was not a fine because