Liening On the Wrong Side of the Law: A multi-state comparative analysis of property tax sale reform in response to Tyler v. Hennepin 

Author: Mallory Verez

Contributors: Simone Montgomery, Maya Nakamura

Introduction 

In 2023, the United States Supreme Court heard arguments in Tyler v. Hennepin County and held that the practice of “home equity theft” was unconstitutional as it violated the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause.¹ At issue was Minnesota’s practice of selling homes for unpaid tax debt and retaining the proceeds in excess of the debt owed.² Specifically, Tyler concerned an elderly Minnesota condominium owner who lost her home in a tax foreclosure case after amassing $15,000 in unpaid property taxes, with interest and penalties. Hennepin County seized the condo, sold it for $40,000, and kept $25,000 in excess of what was owed.³ The Court found that the county’s sale of the property and retention of the excess $25,000 was unconstitutional as it constituted a taking without just compensation to the owner.⁴ 

This ruling created an obligation for states to evaluate and reform their tax sale laws to recognize a homeowner’s entitlement to surplus equity in their home when greater than the tax debt owed. While most states have amended their laws to comply with Tyler, Illinois has yet to take action.⁵ If Illinois is to successfully pass legislative reform, it must learn from the actions of other states. To aid in that learning, we have compared and analyzed the property tax sale system, legislative reform, strategies employed, and ongoing challenges of 13 states impacted by the Tyler decision. While much of this analysis provides a pathway that Illinois can replicate, it also highlights actions to avoid and details to consider in adopting successful reform. 

This report includes recommendations for ways in which Illinois can adopt legislation that puts the state in compliance with Tyler v. Hennepin, removes liability from counties, protects homeowners, and helps elderly and low-income residents keep ownership of their family homes. 

Pre-Tyler Property Tax Sale Systems 

In analyzing the original tax sale systems of the 13 states, some commonalities stood out. There were two common pre-Tyler tax sale systems: (1) the tax lien auction system of six states; and (2) the local government ownership system of five states. This section also covers the two unique tax sale systems of Louisiana and Arkansas prior to reform. While each of these states have amended their tax sale systems in recent years, most still begin in the same way the original systems did. As such, this section discusses the original systems in the present tense for consistency purposes. 

Tax Lien Sales: Alabama⁶, Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Nebraska, New Jersey, and South Dakota 

The original tax sale processes employed by these six states were very similar to each other and, in many ways, mirrored Illinois’ current system. Under these systems, if a homeowner falls behind on property taxes and becomes delinquent, a county or municipality places a lien on the property.⁷ If the tax debt is not settled within a specific period, the local government sells the lien in a public tax certificate auction.⁸ These auctions operate in a round-robin format, with tax purchasers often bidding down the starting interest rate. The range of starting interest rates includes 18% in New Jersey, 16% in Arizona, 12% in Alabama, 10% in South Dakota, and 9% in Illinois.⁹ However, there are exceptions to this standard bidding format. For example, Colorado’s process includes selling the lien to anyone willing to pay the taxes, interest, and fees due, or who would further pay the largest amount in excess of what is owed.¹⁰ The interest rates for these liens are fixed by law and any excess paid is “credited to the county general fund.”¹¹ Similarly, Nebraska’s process is to sell the tax lien to anyone offering to pay the amount due “for the smallest portion of the same,” i.e., portion of the property; but bids are commonly made for the whole property.¹² 

In each state, the successful purchaser receives a tax lien certificate describing the property, lien, and often the date when the purchaser will be entitled to a deed for the property.¹³ Following a tax sale, the homeowner has a period in which they may “redeem” their property by paying all owed taxes, interest, fees, and costs associated with the sale. The redemption periods are three years for Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Nebraska, and South Dakota; two and a half to three years for Illinois; and two years for New Jersey.¹⁴ If the homeowner does not redeem, the tax purchaser can obtain a deed through application to the county treasurer or a foreclosure action in local court, giving all right, title, and interest to the tax purchaser.¹⁵ No mechanism is provided for a property owner to recover any surplus or equity in the home.¹⁶ 

Local Government Ownership: Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, and Oregon 

The second common tax sale system was present in five states and involved foreclosure of a tax lien and ownership by the local government. Under these systems, when an owner is delinquent on property taxes, the government files a lien, issues a tax taking, or otherwise initiates a foreclosure against the property.¹⁷ In Massachusetts and Minnesota, the taking or judgment gives the government ownership or limited title, and the former owner may still redeem.¹⁸ In New York, Oregon, and Minnesota, ownership is not transferred until the redemption period ends.¹⁹ Redemption periods are six months in Massachusetts, 18 months in Maine, two years in New York and Oregon, and three years in Minnesota.²⁰ In each state, if not redeemed, the government takes full title to the property, and it may hold or dispose of the property as it chooses.²¹ 

In addition to the system described above, Maine also had an alternative tax sale process codified by a 2018 bill.²² This bill created a process municipalities had to follow when selling properties owned by persons 65 years or older. If the property was receiving a homestead exemption, the municipality was required to notify the owner of their right to require an alternative sale process and include an application. If the owner demanded a sale and was eligible, the municipality had to list the property with a licensed real estate broker, sell it at fair market value, and pay the owner any excess proceeds, minus the debt owed. If the municipality was unable to contract with a broker after contacting at least three, or if the broker could not sell the property within six months of listing, the municipality could do with the property what it deemed fit.²³ 

Outliers: Louisiana and Arkansas  

Louisiana and Arkansas each had unique property tax sale systems prior to reform. Under Louisiana’s original system, tax delinquent properties go to auction with a bid-down process, where purchasers bid on ownership percentage.²⁴ The successful purchaser receives a tax sale certificate describing the property, taxes and fees due, and the bid made for the property.²⁵ If the property is not redeemed within the three-year redemption period,²⁶ the purchaser can institute a quiet title proceeding²⁷ against the former owner to terminate their interests.²⁸ This system provides no mechanism for the owner to obtain surplus equity in their homes. 

When a property is tax delinquent in Arkansas, it is forfeited to the state and transmitted to the Commissioner of State Lands for collection or sale.²⁹ The redemption period is one year following certification of the property to the Commissioner.³⁰ If not redeemed, the property is auctioned to pay back taxes and fees.³¹ The successful bidder receives a limited warranty deed. While this is not marketable title, the purchaser may file suit for confirmation of title, which vests complete title to the purchaser.³² The money collected in the tax sale is distributed to the Commissioner to cover penalties and fees, to counties owed for taxes and interest, to the Department of Finance and Administration for delinquent taxes and penalties, and then the remainder, if any, is held in escrow by the Commissioner. If no actions are brought against the sale, the remainder is distributed, in part, to the Commissioner for administration of the funds, and then to the owner if they appropriately file an application requesting release of the funds.³³ 

Table 1: Summary of pre-Tyler tax sale systems 

Original Tax Sale System	States
Tax Lien Sales	Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Nebraska, New Jersey, South Dakota
Local Government Ownership	Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Oregon
Ownership Percentage Sales	Louisiana
State Ownership and Auction	Arkansas

Typology of Property Tax Sale Reforms 

Among the states examined, there were two common approaches to reform: (1) interjecting a public auction of the property into the existing system; and (2) selling the property at fair market value by listing it with a licensed real estate broker or agent. The broker option was adopted by Maine, Massachusetts, and Oregon. The auction option was adopted by the other 10 states.  

Public Auction: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Louisiana, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, and South Dakota 

In most of these states, the former owner must demand the auction, or the tax purchaser must initiate a foreclosure against the property. The former owner can request an excess proceeds sale in Arizona, respond to foreclosure by demanding a public auction in Alabama, or request the property be sold at judicial sale or online auction in New Jersey.³⁴ So long as the court finds it proper,³⁵ the sale or auction must take place within a specified period.³⁶ The minimum bid is the amount necessary to redeem, plus any additional fees and costs the court determines.³⁷ Any surplus, after taxes and costs are paid, is distributed to the former owner upon claim, written application, or execution of a release and waiver of rights and interest in the property.³⁸ If the owner does not claim the surplus within a certain period, the funds go to the state, county, or back to the tax purchaser, and the owner may no longer make a claim for the surplus.³⁹ 

The tax purchaser initiates the public auction through foreclosure proceedings in Colorado, Louisiana,⁴⁰ Nebraska,⁴¹ and New York.⁴² Once the redemption period ends, the tax purchaser must begin foreclosure proceedings or, in Colorado, file an application for public auction of a certificate of option for treasurer’s deed to the property.⁴³ At auction, the minimum bid is the total amount owed and the winning bid is conclusively considered the full or fair market value of the property.⁴⁴ Surplus is the total from the sale minus all taxes and costs, and is distributed to other lienors and then the former owner upon their claim, if any remains.⁴⁵ In Colorado and Louisiana, if the surplus is not claimed within six months or one year, the funds are considered unclaimed and are transferred to the state.⁴⁶ In New York, the former owner has three years to claim the surplus before the funds are deemed abandoned and paid to the taxing district.⁴⁷ 

The auction is automatic in Arkansas, Minnesota, and South Dakota. The local government in each state, or Commissioner of State Lands in Arkansas, must sell the property at public auction to the highest bidder.⁴⁸ The minimum bid is calculated as the cost of taxes, penalties, and interest, although the local government in Minnesota can only accept the estimated market value as a minimum bid for the first 30 days.⁴⁹ To obtain surplus from these sales, the former owner must file an application or a claim form within a certain period, or funds go to the state, the county’s forfeited tax sale fund, or the unclaimed property division.⁵⁰ This only works in Arkansas because of further legislation repealing a law that served as a loophole allowing the state to give property to government entities instead of selling and preserving equity for the homeowner.⁵¹ 

Licensed Broker or Real Estate Agent: Maine, Massachusetts, and Oregon 

This reform option involves listing the property for sale with a licensed broker or real estate agent for either fair market value or the highest reasonable price at which the property is likely to sell.⁵² The local government has a certain period in which it must contract with the broker or agent and list the property for sale. If the property sells, the former owner must be paid any excess sale proceeds after subtracting the owed taxes, interest, fees, and expenses.⁵³ 

If the local government cannot contract with a broker or agent, or the property cannot be sold within a certain period, the local government may sell the property as it deems appropriate in Maine,⁵⁴ or it must attempt to sell the property at a public auction in Massachusetts and Oregon.⁵⁵ At the public auctions, the minimum bid is two-thirds of the property’s fair market value.⁵⁶ In Massachusetts, if the property does not sell at auction, the municipality must notify parties entitled to claim excess equity of its intent to continue to sell the property.⁵⁷ In Oregon, if the property does not sell at this first auction, the county must auction it again with a minimum bid that equals the outstanding taxes and other charges.⁵⁸ If the property still fails to sell, the county may forgive the amount of outstanding taxes and charges and retain the property for public purposes or transfer it to a nonprofit for public benefit purposes.⁵⁹ 

This tax sale process also allows local governments to retain properties for public use instead of selling them. In each state, if the government chooses to retain the property, it must procure an appraisal report.⁶⁰ The appraised value is then used to calculate “excess proceeds” due to former owners in lieu of a sale price.⁶¹ Excess proceeds via appraisals or sales must always be returned to the former owner, but the owner must make or file a claim in order to receive them.⁶² 

In Maine, the municipality must send to the former owner a written accounting of the amount of proceeds (itemizing any deductions) and a notice of its intent to pay excess sale proceeds. The former owner, for their part, must file a claim for the proceeds within 30 days of the final published notice.⁶³ Similarly, in Massachusetts, the municipality must send the former owner a written itemized accounting of proceeds including sale price; legal, marketing, and auctioneer fees; advertising costs; appraisal fees; and any excess equity due to them.⁶⁴ It must also send notice to the former owner that they may submit a written claim for excess equity within 18 months from the date of notice.⁶⁵ In Oregon, the county must also provide the former owner with an itemized accounting of all allowable costs deducted when determining the surplus proceeds.⁶⁶ However, the owner must make their claim for surplus with the State Treasurer, through the filing of a form, and they may do so at any time after the property is reported to the state.⁶⁷ 

Table 2: Post-Tyler reform systems 

Reform System	States
Public Auction	Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Louisiana, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, South Dakota
Licensed Broker/Real Estate Agent Sale	Maine, Massachusetts, Oregon

Process and Strategy 

Although each state pursued legislative reform in different ways, some processes and strategies employed stood out as commonalities. 

Amount of Legislative Action 

In Arkansas, Maine, Massachusetts, and Oregon, it took two legislative actions to reach the systems currently in place.⁶⁸ Maine required two bills, in part, because the first bill directed the Maine Revenue Service to establish a working group to study issues in the property tax foreclosure process.⁶⁹ The working group then produced a report that made recommendations, and developed proposed legislation based on those recommendations.⁷⁰ That legislation, with some modifications, ultimately became the second bill that passed in the Maine legislature.⁷¹ Similarly, Oregon’s first bill required a working group to study the tax sale system and make recommendations for legislation, which were then used in crafting the second bill.⁷² On the other hand, Arkansas and Massachusetts required two bills because the first bill in those states either did not address some concerns of advocates and stakeholders or was not extensive enough to achieve comprehensive reform.⁷³ For reform to be “comprehensive,” it must address notice requirements, interest rates, redemption periods, and the right to home equity, among other accessibility and fairness considerations.⁷⁴ While some states were able to pass comprehensive reform in one bill, legislators and advocates in Illinois should consider that it might take additional action after a bill is passed to successfully respond to Tyler.  

Working Groups 

Numerous states – including Colorado, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Maine, Louisiana, and Oregon – relied on working groups or committees to make recommendations and aid in the drafting of reform legislation.⁷⁵ Some groups were mandated by legislation, while others involved practitioners and advocates voluntarily convening to find a resolution.⁷⁶ Some working groups even produced proposed legislation or recommendations for legislation.⁷⁷ Each group, however, involved key stakeholders discussing avenues toward reform and the unique interests of various parties. The opportunity to negotiate prior to the introduction of legislation could similarly aid Illinois in garnering well-rounded support and developing comprehensive reform, and convening a working group to suggest legislative recommendations could increase the likelihood of success in passing reform legislation. 

Types of Legislation 

Illinois should also bear in mind that passing a standalone bill is not the only way to amend its tax sale system. Some states passed reform through an omnibus bill or budget bill, rather than a traditional standalone bill. For example, Minnesota passed tax sale legislation through an omnibus bill in May 2024, and New York and Massachusetts passed reform through FY24-25 and FY25 budget bills, respectively.⁷⁸ Additionally, some states that did pass reform through a standalone bill also highlighted the time-sensitive and Tyler-responsive nature of the legislation by titling the bill as an emergency action or coming into compliance with the Supreme Court decision.⁷⁹ Emphasizing the necessity of reforming the Illinois tax sale system in the legislation itself could put additional pressure on the legislature to act. 

Interest Groups 

Another important aspect of legislative reform in each of these states and, therefore, in Illinois, is the consideration of interest groups and affected parties. In most states, the primary voices speaking out about potential legislation included local governments and their associations, advocacy coalitions and organizations, tax lien and tax purchaser associations, and policy groups.⁸⁰ By seeking the opinions and feedback of these varying groups prior to introducing legislation, Illinois could avoid public opposition to the reform sought and potentially gain additional proponents for legislation. Considering the time-sensitive nature of tax sale reform in Illinois, a smooth and supported attempt at reform is ideal. 

Ongoing Issues and Legal Challenges 

While litigation regarding the legality of various states’ tax sale processes has been ongoing for years before Tyler⁸¹ and is still active in the years since, some cases have a significant impact beyond the parties directly involved. 

Protected Property Interests and Liability 

Continental Resources v. Fair,⁸² a case from Nebraska that began in 2018, considered the issues of protected property interests and Takings Clause liability when private third parties are doing the taking.⁸³ The Nebraska Supreme Court ultimately held that homeowners have a protected property interest in the value of their property that exceeds tax debt, and found that private tax purchasers can be liable to pay just compensation for a taking when they engage in state action.⁸⁴ 

In Continental, when the Fairs failed to pay property taxes, the county treasurer sold a tax certificate to Continental Resources for $588.21.⁸⁵ After three years, Continental Resources notified the Fairs that if they did not redeem, for the amount of $5,268.32, Continental Resources would apply for a tax deed and the right of redemption would expire. The Fairs did not redeem, and Continental Resources requested, and was issued, a tax deed.⁸⁶  

The Nebraska Supreme Court published a decision in 2022 finding that Nebraska law did not recognize that a former owner had a property right to value in the property exceeding the tax debt, and it rejected the Fair’s Takings arguments.⁸⁷ However, following the decision in Tyler,⁸⁸ the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Nebraska Supreme Court’s prior decision in Continental and remanded it for further consideration.⁸⁹ Upon review, the Court held that Fair had a protected property interest in the value of the property exceeding the tax debt. This ruling expanded upon the reasoning in Tyler, applying the case’s logic even when there was no tax sale resulting in excess proceeds and a third party received title to the property without paying for it.⁹⁰ Notably, the Nebraska system that was analyzed in this case, now reformed through legislation, bears numerous similarities to Illinois’ current system,⁹¹ suggesting that Illinois homeowners have a protected property interest in the value of their property exceeding any tax debt. 

The Court also found that Continental Resources, a private third party, was potentially liable to pay just compensation for the taking.⁹² The Takings Clause requires a showing of state action that deprives someone of their protected property interest.⁹³ In Continental, the Court held that Continental Resources’ pursuit of the tax deed qualified as state action because of its joint action with governmental entities through the exercise of “a privilege created by the State in order to seize property.”⁹⁴ Specifically, “[w]ithout the county’s sale of the tax certificate and issuance of the tax deed, Continental would not have obtained the property.”⁹⁵ This again poses implications for Illinois, suggesting that tax certificate purchasers are state actors for the purpose of a Takings Clause analysis and would, then, potentially be liable for paying just compensation to the former owners. Still, Nebraska Supreme Court decisions are not binding on Illinois, and this question is under consideration in Illinois District Courts through other litigation.⁹⁶  

Recent litigation also raises the issue of whether municipalities and counties can be held liable in these cases or if county tax sale systems are state-mandated policies and thus not an official policy of the county.⁹⁷ The Northern District Court of Illinois found in Bell v. Pappas that if Illinois dictates all relevant facets of Cook County’s property tax sale procedures, the county cannot be considered to have implemented a policy that caused the injury, i.e. the loss of the homeowners’ protected interest in their excess property value.⁹⁸ Because the county’s refusal to compensate owners for their lost equity after a tax sale is not mandated by state law, and the county could adopt policies that provide just compensation, the Court concluded that Cook County may be held liable for the alleged constitutional violations and held the ultimate decision of liability for later determination.⁹⁹ 

Recouping Surplus 

In Massachusetts, a case initially decided in favor of a homeowner is now being appealed by a local government to avoid paying out the full surplus owed to the homeowner.¹⁰⁰ At issue in Davenport v. Town of Reading was Davenport’s home, of which the Town of Reading filed a petition to foreclose in 2013.¹⁰¹ The Land Court issued a judgment in favor of the Town in 2014, and in 2023, it sold the property for $400,000. The tax lien was $150,546.48, and the Town retained the remaining $219,453.52 from the sale.¹⁰² In an effort to recoup the surplus, Davenport filed this case, and the Court ultimately entered judgment in favor of his Fifth Amendment Takings claim.¹⁰³ Despite this favorable judgment for Davenport in October 2024, awarding him the $219,000 surplus from the sale, the Town of Reading has still not paid out what is owed.¹⁰⁴ Instead, it filed an appeal in early 2025 arguing that Davenport’s initial lawsuit was untimely, as the taking occurred at foreclosure rather than sale, and therefore the District Court erred in ordering the Town to pay him $219,000 in damages.¹⁰⁵ This appeal can have significant implications for other former homeowners looking to recoup the surplus value of their homes if the Circuit Court rules in the Town’s favor.  

Just Compensation 

The U.S. Supreme Court has recently decided to take up Pung v. Isabella County, a case out of Michigan principally focused on what constitutes just compensation.¹⁰⁶ The questions presented to the Court are two-fold: (1) whether keeping surplus value from a sale violates the Takings Clause when “the compensation is based on the artificially depressed auction sale price rather than the property’s fair market value”; and (2) whether forfeiture of real property worth more than is necessary to satisfy a tax debt, but sold for a fraction of its real value, constitutes an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment, especially when the debt was never really owed.¹⁰⁷ The Court’s decision in this case could affirm the reform enacted by a majority of states, or it could reopen states and local governments to liability for basing just compensation on public auction sale prices. Since Illinois has yet to reform its tax sale system, it could preemptively remove potential liability by calculating just compensation from the property’s fair market value. 

The Fifth Amendment states that private property cannot be taken for public use without just compensation.¹⁰⁸ In Pung, after multiple years of a property tax exemption, and years of denials and revocations of said exemption, the Isabella County treasurer revoked the 2012 exemption for the property and Pung refused to pay the tax caused by the removal.¹⁰⁹ The result was a $2,241.93 overdue tax bill, leading the treasurer to initiate foreclosure proceedings in June 2014. When Pung failed to appear at the proceedings, the county circuit court entered a judgment of foreclosure in February 2015. Shortly thereafter, Pung moved to set aside the foreclosure, claiming violation of due process rights for lack of notice, and although the circuit court set it aside, the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for entry of foreclosure. The foreclosure concluded with the property selling for $76,008 at public auction, and the county retained over $73,000 in surplus proceeds.¹¹⁰ 

Pung initiated this case after the foreclosure judgment but added claims for violation of the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause after the sale, among other constitutional claims, arguing that Pickens and Isabella County committed a taking when “they refused to pay him the ‘entire value of the Pung Property and/or the value of the surplus equity . . .’ after the foreclosure sale.”¹¹¹ The district court granted Pung’s motion for summary judgment on the Takings claim, left open the question of damages, and then transferred the case to the Eastern District of Michigan. There, Pung renewed his motion for summary judgment, which the court granted, holding that Pung was entitled to the surplus proceeds from the tax foreclosure sale plus interest. However, the court denied the claim for loss in equity based on the property’s fair market value.¹¹² On appeal, Pung argued that the court’s award of surplus proceeds violated the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause. Isabella County argued that the court improperly awarded interest on the surplus proceeds.¹¹³ 

Pung argued that the Fifth Amendment entitled him to an award “based on the full fair market value of the property and not merely the surplus proceeds from the foreclosure sale.”¹¹⁴ He claimed that Isabella County took over $192,000, the difference between fair market value and the tax delinquency. The Court here found that the district court ruled consistently with its own prior decision, in which it held that “the best evidence of a foreclosed property’s value is the property’s sales price, not what it was worth before the foreclosure.”¹¹⁵ The Court also held that a county must pay interest on surplus proceeds from a tax foreclosure sale to ensure compensation contemporaneous with the taking.¹¹⁶ 

In his petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, Pung argues that just compensation is based on the fair market value of what was taken and, in the alternative, that if the county’s actions do not constitute a taking, they otherwise deprived the Estate of so much equity that it became an excessive fine and violated the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment.¹¹⁷ 

Considering that the reform instituted by 10 of the states analyzed in this report¹¹⁸ require the return of surplus to former homeowners based on the sale price at auction, a Supreme Court decision finding that just compensation must be based on fair market value would leave states and local governments open to liability once again. Illinois is in a unique position, having not yet reformed its tax sale system, to avoid this issue altogether. In reform legislation, Illinois could require that surplus be calculated based on fair market or appraised value, as Maine and Massachusetts require.¹¹⁹ Illinois’ reform legislation could also, instead, require that the minimum bid at public auction be set at fair market or appraised value, as Minnesota and Oregon somewhat require.¹²⁰ Finally, Illinois could pursue the licensed broker or real estate agent reform system and require property be listed for sale at its fair market or appraised value, for the highest and best use of the property, as Maine, Massachusetts, and Oregon require.¹²¹ 

Excessive Fines 

The Northern District Court of Illinois recently decided Bell v. Pappas, referenced earlier regarding municipal liability, in which a class of plaintiffs argued, among other claims, that Cook County’s tax sales violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on excessive fines.¹²² Cook County’s tax sales are conducted in accordance with Illinois’ Property Tax Code, through which the county applies for a judgment and order of sale for unpaid taxes on a property.¹²³ The judgment grants the county a tax lien on the property and, once judgment and order of sale is rendered, the county offers its liens at its annual tax sale. Tax purchasers bid a penalty interest rate for the lien, and the successful purchaser is whomever bids the lowest.¹²⁴ Homeowners generally have 30 months to redeem the property by paying all taxes, interest, and penalties, and if they do not redeem, the tax purchaser can petition the court for ownership.¹²⁵ If the petition is granted, the county clerk is ordered to issue and certify a tax deed to the purchaser, which transfers ownership of the property.¹²⁶ 

In determining whether the Excessive Fines Clause has been violated, the Court considers whether the sanction is punitive or purely remedial, and whether, if the sanction is punitive, it is grossly disproportional to the gravity of the offense.¹²⁷ Here, the Court found that Cook County’s tax sales, through the Illinois Property Tax Code, have a punitive purpose: “to coerce tax delinquent property owners to pay their taxes.”¹²⁸ This means the tax sales cannot be purely remedial.¹²⁹ 

Although the county argued that property tax sales cannot be considered a “fine” because the county never takes possession of property or retains surplus value, the Court held that “it is the punitive purpose of the government sanction, not what the government receives, that causes a fine to fall under Eighth Amendment scrutiny.”¹³⁰ Here, the county’s tax sales resulted in the transfer of home to tax purchasers through tax deeds, there is no process to reverse the transfers, and the homeowners lost both their homes and the excess equity in them.¹³¹ As such, the county has imposed a fine on the homeowners that is subject to Eighth Amendment scrutiny.¹³² 

In determining whether the fine is excessive, the Court considered its criminality and relation to other criminal activity; whether those impacted fit into the class for whom the statute was designed; the maximum fine that could have been imposed; and the nature of the harm caused.¹³³ The Court found that a failure to pay property taxes is non-criminal and suggests total forfeiture without compensation is unwarranted.¹³⁴ Additionally, although the property tax code was designed to punish homeowners who fail to pay property taxes, it does not impose a maximum penalty through tax sales and homeowners should have their excess equity returned to them.¹³⁵ Finally, the Court found there was little justification for imposing any fine beyond the payment due, especially when homeowners also suffer the loss of their rights to their homes.¹³⁶ 

As such, the Court concluded that losing excess equity because of the county’s tax sales does constitute an excessive fine “in all residential property cases.”¹³⁷ Although the Illinois Property Tax Code requires counties to maintain a fund to indemnify eligible property owners, an “indemnity fund”, homeowners are not guaranteed to receive an award.¹³⁸ The existence of such indemnity fund, which is underfunded and backlogged, is not a remedy for the excessive fines otherwise imposed.¹³⁹ This case further necessitates a change to Illinois’ property tax sale system. The indemnity fund is not sufficient to protect the state, or its counties, from liability, and the state’s practice of stripping homeowners of their excess equity to repay delinquent property taxes is an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment. Continued refusal to act will only serve to harm homeowners and government, and delay the inevitable return of excess equity to so many who have been injured by the current property tax sale system.  

Additional Policy Considerations and Recommendations 

Redemption Periods 

Redemption periods provide an opportunity for owners to avoid losing their homes for overdue property taxes. Long redemption periods are important because homeowners should have ample opportunity to redeem their properties, especially considering the speed at which the amount owed can exponentially increase. When interest, fees, penalties, and costs are applied to delinquent taxes, the total required to redeem can escalate from a few hundred dollars to  thousands.¹⁴⁰ Some states have a relatively long redemption period, which can facilitate homeowners repaying what they owe – at least three years.¹⁴¹ However, other states severely limit a homeowner’s ability to come up with the money necessary to redeem by maintaining significantly shorter redemption periods of six months to two years.¹⁴² In the current system, Illinois’ redemption period is two and a half years unless extended by the tax certificate holder.¹⁴³ In reform legislation, Illinois has the opportunity to do what other states have not and extend its statutorily mandated redemption period to better protect homeowners and allow them the time necessary to repay delinquent taxes and fees. 

Interest Rates 

The starting interest rate bid at tax sales in Illinois is already significantly lower than many other states at 9% and bidding down to as low as zero.¹⁴⁴ However, Illinois’ system also applies the interest rate charged by the tax purchaser every six months, rather than annually. State law says that the amount required to redeem a property increases every six months as the certificate of purchase amount times the penalty interest rate bid at sale.¹⁴⁵ Between six and 12 months, the former owner must pay “the certificate amount times 2 times the penalty bid at sale.”¹⁴⁶ Between 12 and 18 months, they must pay the certificate amount times three times the penalty bid. This continues throughout the redemption period, even if extended from 30 months to 36 months. As such, if the purchaser of the tax certificate bid a 2% interest rate, it would become 4% after six months and 8% after one year, and so on.¹⁴⁷ Additionally, if the tax purchaser pays any later years of property taxes assessed during the redemption period, 12% interest is applied to the payments and added to the cost of redemption.¹⁴⁸ Reform legislation could amend this aspect of payment enforcement to apply the interest rate every year, instead of every six months, to eliminate the repetitive application of the interest rate altogether, or reduce the interest applied to subsequent property tax payments made by the tax purchaser. Any of these actions would make redemption a more realistic possibility for owners facing tax foreclosure. 

Notice Requirements 

Notice to homeowners regarding delinquency, the tax sale, redemption, public auction or licensed broker sale, transfer of title, and entitlement to surplus should all be as robust as possible. Strong notice provisions help ensure that homeowners are given every opportunity to keep their homes or the equity from their homes. Maine’s policy is an example of robust notice provisions, which requires notice to the former owner at every step of the process, including notice of tax delinquency, pre-tax lien foreclosure notice, pre-sale notice, pre-payment notice prior to disbursement of surplus proceeds, and recorded notice that the surplus has been paid.¹⁴⁹ Colorado similarly passed strong notice requirements in its reform legislation, which include notice of tax deed application, notice of public auction, known interested party notice, notice of continuance of public auction, notice of auction cancellation and redemption, and remaining overbid notice.¹⁵⁰ Any legislative reform pursued by Illinois, inclusive of either sale by licensed real estate broker or public auction, should be at least as comprehensive as in these states to protect homeowners and ensure their full due process rights are met. 

Recovering Surplus Equity 

Efforts at legislative reform in Illinois should also strongly consider what type of burden is placed on a former owner to recover the surplus equity in their home. Any public auction or sale of property should occur by default, not upon an owner’s demand, request, or agreement to participate. Through Maine’s initial reform, owners were required to formally request a sale by a licensed real estate agent or broker.¹⁵¹ However, the working group mandated by that legislation ultimately recommended that the “demand requirement” be eliminated because it added a “layer of complexity and confusion for both former owners and municipalities.”¹⁵² The second reform bill in Maine adopted that recommendation, and the process now requires municipalities to contract with a broker to sell the property without the former owner needing to formally request it.¹⁵³ A similar inclusion in Illinois reform legislation would remove one of the barriers homeowners otherwise face in trying to recover the equity in their home, which makes the system more equitable for owners who are already in a difficult and vulnerable situation. 

Conclusion 

Although each state had its own property tax foreclosure and sale system prior to Tyler v. Hennepin,¹⁵⁴ most had some variation of either a tax lien sale system or a government ownership system. These original systems rarely, if ever, provided a mechanism for former owners to recoup the excess equity in their homes following a foreclosure. After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Tyler that selling a property for delinquent taxes and retaining the surplus was an illegal taking under the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause,¹⁵⁵ every impacted state except Illinois passed legislation to reform their tax sale system. In analyzing 13 of the states that instituted legislative reform, two common approaches to reform stood out: (1) interjecting a public auction of the property into the existing system; and (2) selling the property at fair market value by listing it with a licensed real estate broker or agent. Public auction reform was the most popular among states,¹⁵⁶ but licensed broker reform was adopted by a few, as well. While some aspects of reform like just compensation and liability are still being decided in state and federal courts, these states still suggest a potential way forward. 

Illinois has a unique opportunity, having not yet reformed its tax sale system, to learn from the processes and reform adopted in each of these states. Local advocates and state legislators should take into consideration the recently decided and still pending lawsuits, contents of reform legislation, and process by which each state passed reform that are described in this report. In learning from these other states, Illinois could avoid the pitfalls and replicate the successes of other systems. Any pursued reform should be comprehensive in its contents, protective of homeowners, and cognizant of competing interests to avoid further unnecessary delays. If Illinois continues to refuse to act, it will only face further scrutiny and potential liability, and more homeowners will lose their home equity at the hands of an unconstitutional tax sale system. 

Table 3: Summary of policy recommendations 

Aspects of Reform	Recommendations
Amount of Legislative Action	Remember that it may take more than one piece of legislation to pass successful reform, such as a bill to form a working group, a bill to pass preliminary reform, and any later bills if amendments are needed.
Working Groups	Implement a working group of key stakeholders, practitioners, advocates, and policymakers to provide recommendations for legislation.  Negotiate with interested parties prior to the introduction of legislation.
Types of Legislation	Consider standalone bills, omnibus bills, or even budget bills as the vehicle to pass tax sale reform.  Emphasize the time-sensitive and liability-removing nature of tax sale reform legislation.
Interest Groups	Seek the opinions and feedback of varying parties with differing interests prior to the introduction of legislation.
Recouping Surplus	Include language in legislative reform that provides specific details about how surplus is obtained.  Include an enforcement mechanism in legislation so liable parties cannot withhold surplus when an owner is otherwise entitled to it.
Just Compensation	Consider requiring that surplus or excess be based on fair market or appraised value rather than sale or auction price to ensure former owners are justly compensated and Illinois can avoid additional potential liability.
Redemption Periods	Extend the baseline redemption period from 30 months (two and a half years) to 36 months (three years), or an even longer timeframe.
Interest Rates	Reduce the amount of interest applied to delinquent taxes by applying the penalty bid interest rate annually, rather than every six months, or only once during the redemption period entirely.  Consider reducing the interest rate applied to later property tax payments made by the tax purchaser from 12% to 9% at the most, which is the maximum penalty bid interest rate in the state.
Notice Requirements	Include language throughout reform legislation that provides specific notice requirements at every step of the tax foreclosure process.  This should include, depending on the reform pursued, notice of tax delinquency, pre-tax lien foreclosure notice, pre-sale notice, notice of auction, notice of cancellations or continuations, interested party notice, redemption period notice, notice of surplus/excess, and notice prior to disbursement.
Obtaining Surplus Equity	Require that public auctions or sale occur by default, rather than upon demand or request by the homeowner.

[1] Tyler v. Hennepin Cnty., Minnesota, 598 U.S. 631 (2023).

[2] Id.

[3] Id. at 635.

[4] Id. at 637-38, 647.

[5] Bell v. Pappas, No. 1:22-cv-07061 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 8, 2025) (finding that Cook County’s tax sale procedures, conducted in accordance with Illinois’ Property Tax Code, violate the Fifth and Eighth Amendments).

[6] Alabama has two systems and counties may choose which they adopt. The lien system is described in this section and was enacted in 2018. The “sale of land” system involves a sale of the property to the highest bidder. ALA. CODE § 40-10-15. The result is a certificate of purchase. § 40-10-19. If the property is not redeemed, the tax purchaser receives a deed. § 40-10-29. Prior to 2013, any overbid from the sale was owed to the former owner. § 40-10-28 (2012). Since 2013, owners only receive the surplus if they have redeemed the property. § 40-10-28 (2013). If not redeemed, the surplus is credited to the county general fund. Id.

[7] Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-11-101 (2025); N.J. Stat. § 54:5-6 (2025); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 42-17153 (2025); S.D. Codified Laws § 10-21-33 (2025); Ala. Code § 40-1-2 (2025); Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-1725.01 (2025); 35 Ill. Comp. Stat. 200/21-75, -180 (2025).

[8] Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-11-101; N.J. Stat. § 54:5-19; Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-18104; S.D. Codified Laws § 10-23-7; Ala. Code § 40-10-182 (creating new tax lien system in 2018); Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-1818; 35 Ill. Comp. Stat. 200/21-190, -205.

[9] N.J. Stat. § 54:5-32; Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 42-18053; Ala. Code § 40-10-184; S.D. Codified Laws § 10-23-8; 35 Ill. Comp. Stat. 200/21-215.

[10] Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-11-115.

[11] Id.

[12] Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-1807.

[13] Ala. Code § 40-10-187; Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-18118; Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-11-117; Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-1819; S.D. Codified Laws § 10-23-18; 35 Ill. Comp. Stat. 200/21-250; N.J. Stat. § 54:5-47.

[14] Ala. Code § 40-10-120; Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-18152; Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 39-11-129, -12-103; Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 77-1824, -1837(1)(b); S.D. Codified Laws §§ 10-24-1, -25-1; 35 Ill. Comp. Stat. 200/21-350, -385(c); N.J. Stat. § 54:5-82.

[15] Ala. Code §§ 40-10-29, -197 (2023); Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 42-18201, -18204 (2023); Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 39-11-128-29, -136; 35 Ill. Comp. Stat. 200/22-30, -40; Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 77-1837 (2022), -1902 (2024), -1903; N.J. Stat. §§ 54:5-86-87, -90; S.D. Codified Laws §§ 10-25-1, -11-12.

[16] While not a mechanism to recover surplus, Illinois has an indemnity fund, through which a former owner can claim indemnity for loss or damage sustained by issuance of a tax deed. An award is limited to fair cash value of the property, minus mortgages or liens, but owners only have a right to indemnity if there was no “fault or negligence” on their part. 35 Ill. Comp. Stat. 200/21-305. Additionally, former owners seeking indemnity must petition the court, asking that judgment be entered against the county treasurer for the amount sought, and there is a backlog of indemnity fund awards of six to seven years. Kidd v. Pappas, No. 22 C 7061, 2025 WL 1865983 (N.D. Ill. July 7, 2025

[17] Me. Stat. Tit. 36, § 943; Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 60, § 53; Minn. Stat. §§ 279.03, .18, 280.01; N.Y. Real Prop. Tax Law § 1123; Or. Rev. Stat. § 312.010(1).

[18] Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 60, § 53; Minn. Stat. §§ 279.03, .18, 280.01.

[19] N.Y. Real Prop. Tax Law §§ 1125, 1110; Or. Rev. Stat. § 312.200; Minn. Stat. § 281.18.

[20] Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 60, § 65; ME. Stat. Tit. 36, § 943; N.Y. Real Prop. Tax Law § 1125, 1110; Or. Rev. Stat. § 312.120(1)-(2); Minn. Stat. § 281.17.

[21] Maine Revenue Servs., Report of the Working Group to Study Equity in the Property Tax Foreclosure Process 4, (Jan. 15, 2024), https://legislature.maine.gov/doc/10639; Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 60, § 77; Minn. Stat. § 281.18; N.Y. Real Prop. Tax Law § 1136; Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 312.200, 275.090.

[22] L.D. 1629, 128th Me. Leg., Second Special Sess. (Me. 2018).

[23] Me. Stat. Tit. 36, § 943-C.

[24] La. Stat. Ann. § 47:2153(B)(5).

[25] Id. § 41:2155.

[26] Id. § 41:2153.

[27] A quiet title proceeding is essentially a lawsuit to establish property ownership, in which a plaintiff seeks an order declaring them the rightful owner and “quieting” any other challenges or claims to ownership.

[28] Id. § 41:2266.

[29] Ark. Code Ann. § 26-37-101.

[30] Id. § 26-37-301.

[31] Id. §§ 26-37-201, -38-201, -38-206.

[32] Id. § 26-37-203.

[33] Id. § 26-37-205.

[34] S.B. 1431, 56th Leg., Second Reg. Sess. (Ariz. 2024); Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-18204(A); H.B. 270, Reg. Sess. (Ala. 2024); Ala. Code § 40-10-197(i)(1)(a); S.B. 2334, 221st Leg. (N.J. 2024); N.J. Stat. § 54:5-87.

[35] In Arizona, the excess proceeds sale is reasonable only if the sale price is likely to be more than $2,500 more than the total amounts due. Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 42-18204(B).

[36] Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-18204(A); Ala. Code § 40-10-197(i)(5); N.J. Stat. § 54:5-87.

[37] Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-18204(A); Ala. Code § 40-10-197(e)(1); S.B. 2334, 221st Leg. (N.J. 2024).

[38] Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-18236; Ala. Code § 40-10-182(b)(3); N.J. Stat. § 54:5-104.64.

[39] Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-18236(B); Ala. Code §§ 40-10-182(b)(3), (c); N.J. Stat. § 54:5-87.

[40] Louisiana’s reform also transitioned the state from a percentage of ownership auction system to a bid-down interest rate auction system. La. Stat. Ann. § 47:2154.

[41] Tax purchasers are required to initiate foreclosure proceedings unless 110% of the assessed value of the property, minus the amount needed to reform, is $25,000 or less. In that case, the tax purchaser may apply for a tax deed. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-1837(2).

[42] H.B. 24-1056, 74th Gen. Assemb., Second Reg. Sess. (Co. 2024); S.B. 2025, 2024 Reg. Sess. (La. 2024); L.B. 727, 108th Leg., First Sess. (Neb. 2023); A.B. A8805C, 2023-2024 Leg. Sess. (Part BB) (N.Y. 2024).

[43] La. Stat. Ann. § 47:2266.1; Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-1837(2); A.B. A8805C, 2023-2024 Leg. Sess. (Part BB) (N.Y. 2024); Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-11.5-102.

[44] La. Stat. Ann. § 47:2267; Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 77-1838, -1903; A.B. A8805C, 2023-2024 Leg. Sess. (Part BB) (N.Y. 2024); Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-11.5-108.

[45] La. Stat. Ann. § 47:2267; A.B. A8805C, 2023-2024 Leg. Sess. (Part BB) (N.Y. 2024); Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-11.5-109. In Nebraska, if the tax purchaser avoided the foreclosure process and obtained a tax deed, surplus is calculated as assessed value, minus amount needed to redeem, pay all encumbrances, and cover administrative fees. Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 77-1838.

[46] Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-11.5-109; La. Stat. Ann. § 47:2267.

[47] A.B. A8805C, 2023-2024 Leg. Sess. (Part BB) (N.Y. 2024).

[48] H.B. 1263, 94th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Ark. 2023); Ark. Code Ann. § 26-37-202; H.F. 5247, 93rd Leg. (Minn. 2024); Minn. Stat. § 282.005; In South Dakota, the property may also be sold through a real estate broker if the governing body so chooses. H.B. 1090, 99th Leg. Sess. (S.D. 2024).

[49] Ark. Code Ann. § 26-37-202; H.B. 1090, 99th Leg. Sess. (S.D. 2024); Minn. Stat. § 282.005.

[50] Ark. Code Ann. §§ 26-37-205(b)-(c); Minn. Stat. § 282.005; H.B. 1090, 99th Leg. Sess. (S.D. 2024).

[51] H.B. 1121, 95th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Ark. 2025).

[52] Me. Stat. Tit. 36, § 943-C(3); Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 60, § 64A; H.B. 2089, 83rd Or. Leg. Assemb., Reg. Sess. § 6 (Or. 2025) (adding sections to chapter 312 of the Oregon Revised Statutes) (hereinafter referenced as Or. Rev. Stat. § Ch. 312).

[53] Id.

[54] L.D. 2262, 131st Me. Leg., Second Reg. Sess. (Me. 2024); Me. Stat. Tit. 36, § 943-C(3) (2024).

[55] Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 60, § 64A(c)(2); Or. Rev. Stat. § Ch. 312, § 6.

[56] Id.

[57] Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 60, § 64A(c)(3).

[58] Or. Rev. Stat. § Ch. 312, § 6.

[59] Id.

[60] Me. Stat. Tit. 36, § 943-C(7); Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 60, § 64A(b)(1)-(2); Or. Rev. Stat. § Ch. 312, § 6.

[61] Id.

[62] Me. Stat. Tit. 36, § 943-C(9)-(10); Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 60, § 64A(d)(3); Or. Rev. Stat. § Ch. 312, § 9.

[63] Me. Stat. Tit. 36, §§ 943-C(3)(d), (8), (10).

[64] Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 60, § 64A(d)(1).

[65] Id. § 64A(d)(3).

[66] Or. Rev. Stat. § Ch. 312, § 8.

[67] Id. § 9; Or. Rev. Stat. § 98.392(1).

[68] H.B. 1263, 94th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Ark. 2023); H.B. 1121, 95th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Ark. 2025); L.D. 101, 131st Me. Leg., First Special Sess. (Me. 2023); L.D. 2262, 131st Me. Leg., Second Reg. Sess. (Me. 2024); Chapter 140 of the Acts of 2024 (Mass. 2024); Chapter 14 of the Acts of 2025 (Mass. 2025); H.B. 4056, 82nd Or. Leg. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Or. 2024); H.B. 2089, 83rd Or. Leg. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Or. 2025).

[69] L.D. 101, 131st Me. Leg., First Special Sess. (Me. 2023).

[70] Maine Revenue Servs., Report of the Working Group to Study Equity in the Property Tax Foreclosure Process (Jan. 15, 2024), https://legislature.maine.gov/doc/10639.

[71] Id.; L.D. 2262, 131st Me. Leg., Second Reg. Sess. (Me. 2024).

[72] H.B. 4056, 82nd Or. Leg. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Or. 2024); H.B. 2089, 83rd Or. Leg. Assemb., Reg. Ses. (Or. 2025).

[73] H.B. 1263, 94th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Ark. 2023); H.B. 1121, 95th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Ark. 2025); Chapter 140 of the Acts of 2024 (Mass. 2024); Chapter 14 of the Acts of 2025 (Mass. 2025).

[74] See Am. Land Title Ass’n, AARP, & Nat’l Consumer Ctr., Reforming Property Tax Foreclosure Laws to Promote Sustainable Homeownership (May 2024), https://www.nclc.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/202405_Issue-Brief_Reforming-Property-Tax-Foreclosure-Laws-to-Promote-Sustainable-Homeownership.pdf; See discussion Infra Ongoing Issues and Legal Challenges Section.

[75] Co. Gen. Assemb. Legis. Oversight Comm. Concerning Tax Pol’Y, Final Report to the General Assembly, Rsch. Publ’n. 798, at 5 (Dec. 2023); Michelle Griffith, Minnesota Poised to Pass New Property Forfeiture Laws After U.S. Supreme Court Ruling, Settlement, Minn. Reformer (Apr. 11, 2024, 7:52 AM), https://minnesotareformer.com/2024/04/11/minnesota-to-adopt-new-property-forfeiture-laws-after-u-s-supreme-court-ruling-settlement/; Report of the New Jersey Judiciary Working Gorup on Tax Sale Foreclosures (Feb. 7, 2024), https://www.njcourts.gov/supreme-court-committee-reports/report-of-judiciary-working-group-tax-sale-foreclosures; New York State Association of Counties, NY Foreclosure Rules in Play After SCOTUS Ruling, NYSAC BLOG (Nov. 16, 2023), https://www.nysac.org/news/posts/ny-foreclosure-rules-in-play-after-scotus-ruling/; Report of the Working Group to Study Equity in the Property Tax Foreclosure Process (Jan. 15, 2024), https://legislature.maine.gov/doc/10639; Rachel Seidensticker, Louisiana’s Legal Landscape Post Tyler v. Hennepin, Tax Sale Res. (last visited Dec. 1, 2025), https://www.taxsaleresources.com/blog/louisiana-post-tyler-v-hennepin; New Foreclosure Surplus Process for Counties Becomes Law on Sept. 26, Ass’n of Or. Cntys. (Aug. 29, 2025), https://oregoncounties.org/new-foreclosure-surplus-process-for-counties-becomes-law-on-sept-26/.

[76] L.D. 101, 131st Me. Leg., First Special Sess. (Me. 2023); H.B. 4056, 82nd Or. Leg. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Or. 2024); See e.g., Report of the New Jersey Judiciary Working Group on Tax Sale Foreclosures, supra note 75.

[77] Report of the WOrking Group to Study Equity in the Property Tax Foreclosure Process, supra note 75; H.B. 4056, 82nd Or. Leg. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Or. 2024).

[78] H.F. 5247, 93rd Leg. (Minn. 2024); A.B. A8805C, 2023-2024 Leg. Sess. (N.Y. 2024); Chapter 140 of the Acts of 2024 (Mass. 2024).

[79] H.B. 24-1056, 74th Gen. Assemb., Second Reg. Sess. (Co. 2024); H.B. 1090, 99th Leg. Sess. (S.D. 2024); H.B. 1263, 94th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Ark. 2023).

[80] Arizona Addresses Tyler v. Hennepin County, Nat’l Tax Lien Ass’n (May 31, 2024), https://members.ntla.org/news-releases/Details/arizona-addresses-tyler-v-hennepin-county-213216; Amendment 4 – Changing Our Entire Tax Sale System, Citizens for a New La. (Nov. 25, 2024), https://www.newlouisiana.org/amendment-4-changing-our-entire-tax-sale-system/; Kris Olson, Change Coming to Municipal Tax Liens – But What Kind?, Mass. Laws. Wkly. (June 2, 2023), https://masslawyersweekly.com/2023/06/02/change-coming-to-municipal-tax-liens-but-what-kind/; Griffith, supra note 62; New York State Association of Counties, supra note 62; New Foreclosure Surplus Process, supra note 62; Statement of Principles on Ending Home Equity Theft, Am. Legis. Exch. Council (Dec. 16, 2021), https://alec.org/model-policy/statement-of-principles-on-ending-home-equity-theft/.

[81] Tyler v. Hennepin Cnty., Minnesota, 598 U.S. 631 (2023).

[82] Cont’l Res. v. Fair, 10 N.W.3d 510 (2024).

[83] This case has been favorably cited in at least a dozen other cases. E.g., Nieveen v. TAX 106, 10 N.W.3d 365 (2024); Edmondson Cmty. Org., Inc. v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, No. CV 24-1921-BAH, 2025 WL 2430345 (D. Md. Aug. 22, 2025); Grady v. Wood Cnty., W. Virginia, 286 F. Supp. 3d 984 (S.D.W. Va. 2025); 257-261 20th Ave., Realty, LLC v. Roberto, 327 A.3d 1177 (2025); Arapaho, LLC Tesco v. McInteer, No. 1 CA-CV 24-0840, 2025 WL 2476182 (Ariz. Ct. App. Aug. 28, 2025) (Catlett, J., concurring).

[84] Cont’l Res. v. Fair, 10 N.W.3d 510, 518-21 (2024).

[85] Id. at 514.

[86] Id.

[87] Id. at 515 (citing Cont’l Res. v. Fair, 971 N.W.2d 313 (2022), cert. granted and judgment vacated, 143 S. Ct. 2580 (2023)).

[88] Tyler, 598 U.S. 631 (2023).

[89] Cont’l Res., 10 N.W.3d 510, 516 (2024).

[90] Id. at 518-20.

[91] 35 Ill. Comp. Stat. 200/21-190, -205, -250, 22-30.

[92] Cont’l Res. v. Fair, 10 N.W.3d 510, 521 (2024).

[93] Id. at 521-22.

[94] Id.

[95] Id. at 522.

[96] E.g., Sharritt v. Henry, No. 23 C 15838, 2024 WL 4524501 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 18, 2024); Third Party Complaint & Demand for Jury Trial, Henry v. Illinois, No. 23 C 15838 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 11, 2024); Integrity Inv. Fund, LLC v. Raoul, No. 3:25-cv-01122 (S.D. Ill.) (filed May 27, 2025); Top Metal Buyers Inc. v. Lopinot, No. 3:24-cv-1073-NJR, 2025 WL 2780046 (S.D. Ill. Sept. 30, 2025).

[97] Bell v. Pappas, No. 1:22-cv-07061, at *18-19 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 8, 2025).

[98] Id. at *18.

[99] Id. at *29-30, 34-35, 50.

[100] Reply Brief of Defendant-Appellant, Davenport v. Town of Reading, No. 24-2055 (1st Cir. Mar. 17, 2025).

[101] Davenport v. Town of Reading, No. CV 22-12239-RGS, 2024 WL 4495105, at *1 (D. Mass. Oct. 15, 2024).

[102] Id.

[103] Id. at *1-3.

[104] Karen Anderson & Gail Waterhouse, Man Fighting to Reclaim Hundreds of Thousands of Dollars, Despite Mass. Law Change, WCVB (Feb. 12, 2025, 6:45 PM), https://www.wcvb.com/article/man-fighting-to-reclaim-hundreds-of-thousands-of-dollars-despite-mass-law-change/63758215.

[105] Reply Brief of Defendant-Appellant at 16, Davenport v. Town of Reading, No. 24-2055 (1st Cir. Mar. 17, 2025).

[106] Pung v. Isabella Cnty., No. 25-95, 2025 WL 2808810 (U.S. Oct. 3, 2025), Pung v. Kopke, No. 22-1919, 2025 WL 318222 (6th Cir. Jan. 28, 2025).

[107] Petition for a Writ of Certiorari at *i, Pung v. Isabella Cnty., No. 25-95, 2025 WL 2093486 (U.S. Jul. 22, 2025).

[108] U.S. Const. amend. V.

[109] Pung v. Kopke, No. 22-1919, 2025 WL 318222, at *2 (6th Cir. Jan. 28, 2025).

[110] Id.

[111] Id. at *3.

[112] Id.

[113] Id.

[114] Id.

[115] Id. at *3-4 (citing Freed v. Thomas, 81 F.4th 655, 659 (6th Cir. 2023) (citing BFP v. Resol. Tr. Corp., 511 U.S. 531, 548-49 (1994))).

[116] Id. at *4.

[117] Id. at *3.

[118] See supra Typology of Property Tax Sale Reforms Section regarding public auction reform in 10 states and accompanying notes.

[119] Me. Stat. Tit. 36, § 943-C(4-A); MASS. GEN. LAWS Ch. 60, § 64A(b)(1)-(2).

[120] Minnesota requires the property must not be sold for less than the initial price, which is equal to estimated market value, for the first 30 days after initially made available. MINN. STAT. § 282.005; Oregon requires if the county cannot contract with a broker or agent, or they are unable to sell the property, there must be a public, high-bid auction at which minimum bid is 2/3 of the property’s fair market value. Or. Rev. Stat. § Ch. 312, § 6.

[121] Me. Stat. Tit. 36, § 943-C(3); Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 60, § 64A; Or. Rev. Stat. § Ch. 312, § 6.

[122] Bell v. Pappas, No. 1:22-cv-07061, at *42 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 8, 2025)

[123] Id. at *2.

[124] Id.

[125] Id. at *3.

[126] Id.

[127] Id. at *42 (quoting United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321, 334 (1998)).

[128] Id.

[129] Id. at *43.

[130] Id.

[131] Id. at *44.

[132] Id.

[133] Id. at *45.

[134] Id. at *46.

[135] Id. at *46-47.

[136] Id. at *47.

[137] Id.

[138] Id. at *3, *48.

[139] Id. at *48.

[140] E.g., Cont’l Res. v. Fair, 10 N.W.3d 510, 514 (2024) (in which the taxes owed were $588.21, but the cost to redeem after three years was $5,268.32); 257-261 20th Ave., Realty, LLC v. Roberto, 327 A.3d 1177 (2025) (in which unpaid taxes totaled $606, but the total to redeem was set at $32,973.15).

[141] States with three-year redemption periods post-Tyler include Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Nebraska, South Dakota, Minnesota, and Louisiana. Ala. Code § 40-10-120; Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-18152; Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 3-11-12, -12-103; Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 77-1824, -1837(1)(b); S.D. Codified Laws §§ 10-24-1, -25-1; Minn. Stat. § 281.17; La. Stat. Ann. § 47:2153.

[142] States with shorter redemption periods include Massachusetts with six months; Maine with 18 months; Arkansas with one year; and New Jersey, New York, and Oregon with two years. Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 60, § 65; Me. Stat. Tit. 36, § 943; Ark. Code Ann. §§ 26-37-301, 101; N.Y. Real Prop. Tax Law §§ 1125, 1110; Or. Rev. Stat. § 312.120(1)-(2).

[143] 35 Ill. Comp. Stat. 200/21-350.

[144] 35 Ill. Comp. Stat. 200/21-215. Starting interest rates in other states include 18% in New Jersey, 16% in Arizona, 12% in Alabama and Louisiana, and 10% in South Dakota. N.J. Stat. § 54:5-3; Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-18053; Ala. Code § 40-10-184; La. Stat. Ann. § 47:2153; S.D. Codified Laws § 10-23-8.

[145] 35 Ill. Comp. Stat. 200/21-355(b).

[146] Id.

[147] 35 Ill. Comp. Stat. 200/21-355(b); How the Illinois Property Tax System Works, Off. of Cook Cnty. Treasurer Maria Pappas 23 (Oct. 2025), https://www.cookcountytreasurer.com/pdfs/understandingyourtaxbill/propertytaxprimer.pdf.

[148] 5 Ill. Comp. Stat. 200/21-355(c)-(d).

[149] L.D. 2262, 131st Me. Leg., Second Reg. Sess. (Me. 2024); Me. Stat. Tit. 36, §§ 942, 943.

[150] H.B. 24-1056, 74th Gen. Assemb., Second Reg. Sess. (Co. 2024).

[151] L.D. 101, 131st Me. Leg., First Special Sess. (Me. 2023).

[152] Maine Revenue Servs. Report of the Working Group to Study Equity in the Property Tax Foreclosure Process 8, (Jan. 15, 2024), https://legislature.maine.gov/doc/10639.

[153] L.D. 2262, 131st Me. Leg., Second Reg. Sess. (Me. 2024).

[154] Tyler v. Hennepin Cnty., Minnesota, 598 U.S. 631 (2023).

[155] Id. at 637-38, 647.

[156] States did not publicly share why they chose to pursue public auction reform as opposed to licensed broker reform, but it could have to do with administrative feasibility as the public auction system often draws from a state’s other foreclosure processes.