Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-166_8n59.pdf
Page Number: 16

Cite as:  598 U. S. ____ (2023) 

13 

Opinion of the Court 

failing to pay her taxes.  States and localities have long im-
posed “reasonable conditions” on property ownership.  Tex-
aco, Inc. v. Short, 454 U. S. 516, 526 (1982).  In Minnesota, 
one of those conditions is paying property taxes.  By neglect-
ing this reasonable condition, the County argues, the owner 
can  be  considered  to  have  abandoned  her  property  and  is
therefore  not  entitled  to  any  compensation  for  its  taking.
See Minn. Stat. §282.08.

The County portrays this as just another example in the
long tradition of States taking title to abandoned property. 
We upheld one such statutory scheme in Texaco.  There, In-
diana law dictated that a mineral interest automatically re-
verted to the owner of the land if not used for 20 years.  454 
U. S.,  at  518.  Use  included  excavating  minerals,  renting 
out  the  right  to  excavate,  paying  taxes,  or  simply  filing  a
“statement of claim with the local recorder of deeds.”  Id., 
at 519.  Owners who lost their mineral interests challenged 
the statute as unconstitutional.  We held that the statute 
did not violate the Takings Clause because the State “has
the power to condition the permanent retention of [a] prop-
erty right on the performance of reasonable conditions that
indicate  a  present  intention  to  retain  the  interest.”  Id.,  at 
526 (emphasis added).  Indiana reasonably “treat[ed] a min-
eral interest that ha[d] not been used for 20 years and for 
which no statement of claim ha[d] been filed as abandoned.” 
Id., at 530.  There was thus no taking, for “after abandon-
ment, the former owner retain[ed] no interest for which he
may claim compensation.”  Ibid. 

The County suggests that here, too, Tyler constructively
abandoned her property by failing to comply with a reason-
able condition imposed by the State.  But the County cites
no case suggesting that failing to pay property taxes is itself 
sufficient  for  abandonment.  Cf.  Krueger  v.  Market,  124 
Minn.  393,  397,  145  N. W.  30,  32  (1914)  (owner  did  not 
abandon property despite failing to pay taxes for 30 years).
Abandonment requires the “surrender or relinquishment or