PRESS RELEASES

SPRINGFIELD, MA –A Massachusetts Superior Court has ruled that a state law allowing municipalities (or private actors to whom municipalities sell the right to foreclose) to foreclose on homes due to property tax debt without having to pay the homeowner the difference between the taxes owed and the value of the home is unconstitutional as applied to the facts of the case at hand.

The Pioneer Public Interest Law Center and Greater Boston Legal Services have filed an action with Massachusetts’ Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) to enjoin the City of Springfield from foreclosing on a home because of an unpaid tax bill without returning more than $200,000 in equity to the homeowner. Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously Tyler v. Hennepin County that any surplus beyond the tax debt in such cases must be returned to the homeowner, rendering Massachusetts' law unconstitutional and unenforceable.

The United States Supreme Court has struck down Minnesota’s tax foreclosure scheme, a ruling that could affect a Massachusetts case in which Worcester homeowner Carmen Rodriguez sued the city to invalidate a state statute that allows municipalities to confiscate people’s homes and equity when they fall behind on their real estate taxes.

PioneerLegal, LLC has filed amicus briefs urging the U.S. Supreme Court to hear two related cases that test the constitutionality of Nebraska and Minnesota laws that permit the state, or a private debt collector as assignee, to take a private home, sell it, and keep the entire proceeds, even if the property sells for much more than the taxes, interest, and costs of collection due for unpaid taxes.

Today the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court missed an opportunity to reaffirm a basic tenet of American government: An informed electorate is necessary for a healthy democracy. The SJC’s decision will prevent Massachusetts voters from having an accurate description of the tax hike amendment to the state Constitution when they cast their ballots in November.