Opinion ID: 1439546
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Retention of Surplus From Tax Sale

Text: The Tupazes and the Miners also seek redress for an alleged infringement of their rights to due process and equal protection because Clinton County will not allow them to retain the surplus proceeds from the tax sale, i.e., the amount of the sale less unpaid taxes, fees, and penalties. In support of their equal protection claim, they also contend that Clinton County has engaged in predatory foreclosure practices in order to raise additional revenue. The District Courts in both cases properly dismissed plaintiffs' claims for a share of any surplus. [7] The retention of any surplus from a tax auction is constitutional because there was no violation of plaintiffs' right to due process related to the notices of foreclosure. See Nelson v. City of New York, 352 U.S. 103, 110, 77 S.Ct. 195, 1 L.Ed.2d 171 (1956) ([N]othing in the Federal Constitution prevents [foreclosing on a property and retaining a surplus from a tax auction] where the record shows adequate steps were taken to notify the owners of the charges due and the foreclosure proceedings.). Regarding their equal protection claims, the record does not support a conclusion that Clinton County has discriminated against plaintiffs on an impermissible basis compared to similarly situated tax payers. See Bizzarro, 394 F.3d at 86. The evidence offered to show that the County harbored an impermissible, profit-driven motive is merely a recitation of the amounts retained in tax foreclosure proceedings in the last several years. Proof that the County routinely retains the surplus from tax salesa practice which the Supreme Court approved over fifty years ago in Nelson does not indicate a discriminatory intent.