A U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year that invalidated the way Massachusetts cities and towns seize real estate for back taxes may end up getting a couple in Marlborough much more money than they would have had otherwise – and they may end up keeping their home.
The Massachusetts Appeals Court ruled Monday that the couple in Marlborough is entitled to the full value of their property minus back taxes owed and related costs, and that one of the family members should be allowed to redeem the property by paying the back taxes and costs, if he wishes and is able.
The result of the case, which the appeals court sent back down to Massachusetts Land Court for further adjudication, is a far cry from how state law treated such cases even two years ago.
In August 2022, the same Massachusetts Appeals Court ruled that the heir of the owner of a home in Bourne had no right to any proceeds from the town government’s sale of the property even though the amount of back taxes and costs owed was less than 1 percent of the value of the property, as New Boston Post reported at the time. That’s because a state statute (which is still on the books) allowed a municipal government to take properties whose owners were more than six months’ behind in paying local property taxes and sell the property, without giving the property owner the difference between the sale price and the amount owed in taxes and costs, as happens with a bank foreclosure.
The different result in the Marlborough case is because of the U.S. Supreme Court’s May 2023 decision in a Minnesota case called Tyler v. Hennepin County. In that case, a 94-year-old woman who stopped paying property taxes on her one-bedroom condominium when she moved into a community for senior citizens lost her condominium and all of her equity in it when the county seized it. The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously decided that the county’s action – taking the property and selling it and keeping all of the proceeds, even above what the property owner owed in taxes, interest, and costs – violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which says “private property” shall not “be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
“The taxpayer must render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, but no more,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the 9-0 decision.
The federal Supreme Court’s decision invalidates the portion of the state back-taxes statute in Massachusetts that gave a municipal government all the money from the property sale.
The Marlborough case involves a complicated series of transactions involving three connected parcels currently occupied by Joseph and Judith Driscoll.
The state Appeals Court decided that Joseph Driscoll may maintain an ownership interest in two of the parcels, which includes the house, and that he should be allowed to redeem the parcels by paying the back taxes, if he can.
“[W]e think it is prudent to allow Joseph a further opportunity to redeem Parcels C and D if he can, especially as the City may prefer to receive that money from him rather than sell the property, with the costs that entails, only to be required under Tyler to return what could be most of the proceeds to him,” the three-judge panel of the state Appeals Court said in its opinion.
The Driscolls represented themselves in the case. Judith Driscoll represented the couple at oral arguments on January 16, 2024.
Justice Peter Rubin asked her at one point if she and her husband would be satisfied with getting the proceeds of the house after the city takes it for back taxes and sell it.
“Our position is we don’t want to leave the house,” Judith Driscoll told the court, explaining that she has lived there for 47 years.
She told the court an appraisal found that the property is worth $1 million.
She also said the couple may be able to come up with enough cash to redeem the tax bill, which Rubin said as of January had ballooned to about $228,000, largely because of costs and interest.
The Driscolls fell behind in paying their property taxes to the city in 2008 because of “loss of income due to unemployment, and serious medical and family legal issues related to the property after the death of Mrs. Driscoll’s father, in 2010,” according to a brief filed by Judith Driscoll in April 2023. Mrs. Driscoll’s company went out of business, leaving her unemployed, while Mr. Driscoll sustained two on-the-job injuries that left him unemployed for six years, Mrs. Driscoll said in the court papers.
The Massachusetts Appeals Court is the state’s second highest court, below the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.
New to NewBostonPost? This isn’t the kind of content you’d expect to find in a Massachusetts news outlet. But here it is. You can get more news and commentary that respects conservative values for two bucks — $2 for two months. Join the real revolution.
