Real property – Taking – Tax debt

Listen to this article

Where a Land Court judge ruled that all rights of redemption as to three parcels of land were forever foreclosed and barred, a remand is necessary in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023).

“The appellants, Joseph and Judith Driscoll, appeal from two final judgments entered by a judge of the Land Court who ruled that all rights of redemption as to three parcels of land, denominated Parcels C, D, and E in the Middlesex Registry of Deeds, Plan Number 1348 of 1951, were forever foreclosed and barred. Joseph also appeals from the denial of his motion to enlarge time to redeem.

“The Driscolls’ house is located on Parcels C and E. The Driscolls argue that the city of Marlborough’s taking and retention of the entirety of all three parcels, rather than compensating them for the value above that amount should it choose to use the property for a public purpose, or selling the property and retaining only that amount and returning the overage to those from whom it was taken, violates the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

“During the pendency of this appeal, the United States Supreme Court issued its ruling in Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023). Tyler held that under the just compensation clause of the Fifth Amendment, when property is taken by a governmental entity to settle a tax debt, if it is sold, the amount above the tax debt must be returned to the taxpayer, or if it is retained to be used for a public purpose, the taxpayer must be compensated for the value above the tax debt. … Prior to that decision, this was the rule in thirty-six States and the District of Columbia. … As a matter of the constitutional right of the taxpayer, it is now the rule throughout the United States, including here in the Commonwealth.

“We conclude that at least Joseph has standing to contest the taking with respect to Parcels C and D, and that the order foreclosing his right of redemption must be vacated pursuant to Tyler, 598 U.S. at 639. We further conclude that determining whether either Judith or Joseph has standing to contest the tax taking of Parcel E turns on factual questions that have not yet been resolved, and that the judgment with respect to that parcel, too, must be vacated. The case is remanded for further proceedings as described below.”

City of Marlborough v. Driscoll, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 81-126-24) (15 pages) (Docket No. 22-P-1084) (Nov. 18, 2024).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.