Pa. judge upholds sale of widow's home over $6 tax bill

[jon_berzerk]

wow! i guess i foolishly thought that the State could only put a lien on ones home if they didn't pay their property tax.....had no idea that a State could just auction off your home....Is this by State? Is it a State's own law that allows this...? Each State being different with their laws regarding this....?

Regardless, what a HUGE injustice with this particular situation! it's just wrong....on so many levels....

they certainly can and do

i have bought more then one house that way

Carpetbaggers. That's what this reminds me of, and while I understand people taking advantage of the deal, it's still criminal. Makes it easy when you don't know the people who's house you are taking, doesn't it?

i have committed no crimes

 

[Againsheila]

they certainly can and do

i have bought more then one house that way

Carpetbaggers. That's what this reminds me of, and while I understand people taking advantage of the deal, it's still criminal. Makes it easy when you don't know the people who's house you are taking, doesn't it?

Its criminal for the state – they are the ones that took the property. There is nothing wrong with purchasing the property back from the state. In most cases, those properties were rightfully taken – when we are talking about sums of money that warrant such action. These cases are (as far as I know) pretty rare with the individual owing almost nothing and the state still taking the property. I would much prefer something like this have to go before a jury – there is not a snowballs chance in hell that a jury would uphold a seizure of a 200K asset for a 6 dollar bill. That really is the entire point of a jury – to not only find guilt but also ensure that the particular law is justifiable.

It's criminal for both. If people didn't buy the property, the state would stop seizing them.

 

[Againsheila]

they certainly can and do

i have bought more then one house that way

Carpetbaggers. That's what this reminds me of, and while I understand people taking advantage of the deal, it's still criminal. Makes it easy when you don't know the people who's house you are taking, doesn't it?

i have committed no crimes

Not legally.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Carpetbaggers. That's what this reminds me of, and while I understand people taking advantage of the deal, it's still criminal. Makes it easy when you don't know the people who's house you are taking, doesn't it?

i have committed no crimes

Not legally.

not morally either

 

[Againsheila]

i have committed no crimes

Not legally.

not morally either

There we can agree to disagree. Like I said, if no one bought them, the government would be seizing them.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Not legally.

not morally either

There we can agree to disagree. Like I said, if no one bought them, the government would be seizing them.

the county would still take them

many of these properties no one is even living in

 

[Againsheila]

not morally either

There we can agree to disagree. Like I said, if no one bought them, the government would be seizing them.

the county would still take them

many of these properties no one is even living in

I have no problem with auctioning off abandoned properties. It's not the same as taking someone's home right out from under them. IMO the guy who bought this woman's house is a guilty as the government that took it.

 

[jon_berzerk]

There we can agree to disagree. Like I said, if no one bought them, the government would be seizing them.

the county would still take them

many of these properties no one is even living in

I have no problem with auctioning off abandoned properties. It's not the same as taking someone's home right out from under them. IMO the guy who bought this woman's house is a guilty as the government that took it.

it is no different

she has had years to solve the problem

before it came to this

and it isnt like she loses out completely

she will receive 106 thousand dollars in the end

 

[HenryBHough]

Welcome to Obamerica where property ownership is prohibited by law. You MUST learn that you built nothing; you earned nothing; you own nothing. What you mistakenly think is the home you own is only rented to you by government.

All Hail The Tax Collectors!

 

[CaféAuLait]

the county would still take them

many of these properties no one is even living in

I have no problem with auctioning off abandoned properties. It's not the same as taking someone's home right out from under them. IMO the guy who bought this woman's house is a guilty as the government that took it.

it is no different

she has had years to solve the problem

before it came to this

and it isnt like she loses out completely

she will receive 106 thousand dollars in the end

She is losing out big time IMO. She is getting a third of her home value at 280k.

I'm confused why you said she "had years to solve the problem". She has been fighting over this for years. The county auctioned her home in 2011- less than a year after she paid her taxes in 2010 with a receipt stating paid in full.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Honestly...I hope she torches the place.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Honestly...I hope she torches the place.

personally

i believe she will win

 

[HenryBHough]

None of this would have happened had she just sent a check.

To Obama's campaign fund.

 

[jon_berzerk]

I have no problem with auctioning off abandoned properties. It's not the same as taking someone's home right out from under them. IMO the guy who bought this woman's house is a guilty as the government that took it.

it is no different

she has had years to solve the problem

before it came to this

and it isnt like she loses out completely

she will receive 106 thousand dollars in the end

She is losing out big time IMO. She is getting a third of her home value at 280k.

I'm confused why you said she "had years to solve the problem". She has been fighting over this for years. The county auctioned her home in 2011- less than a year after she paid her taxes in 2010 with a receipt stating paid in full.

the problems arise in 2008 2009 and 2010

there never was a notice "paid in full"

in fact she was sent letters of remaining balances

in 2009 she was sent notice that she had a remaining balance of 6.30

plus postage and costs total 28.25

then in 2010 she had delinquent taxes once again for 2009

county tax was 1184.37 and a 118.44 penalty

school District tax was 2,324 and a 116.09 penalty

on 6/3/ 2010 the tax claim bureau notified her that she owed 3,832.71 for her 2009 real estate taxes

on 7/2/2010 the Bureau sent a certified notice to her that added interest raising the total to 3,990.03.

On 9/ 11/ 2010, the bureau received a check from her in the amount of 3,990.03

which was applied to her 2009 county and school taxes

leaving a balance from the prior year of 234.72

the issue really is due process case

the appeals court returned the case to the lower court

for evidence

 

[FA_Q2]

Not legally.

not morally either

There we can agree to disagree. Like I said, if no one bought them, the government would be seizing them.

If no one paid taxes we would not able to run a war in Iraq.

If no one joined the service then there would be no soldiers to go to war in Iraq.

I guess that the Iraq war is the fault of taxpayers and servicemen.



Yes, that line of reasoning is completely specious.

 

[HenryBHough]

not morally either

There we can agree to disagree. Like I said, if no one bought them, the government would be seizing them.

If no one paid taxes we would not able to run a war in Iraq.

If no one joined the service then there would be no soldiers to go to war in Iraq.

I guess that the Iraq war is the fault of taxpayers and servicemen.



Yes, that line of reasoning is completely specious.

Who knew that city property taxes were paying for wars! And here we all thought they were just paying communist-leaning union labour!

 

[FA_Q2]

There we can agree to disagree. Like I said, if no one bought them, the government would be seizing them.

If no one paid taxes we would not able to run a war in Iraq.

If no one joined the service then there would be no soldiers to go to war in Iraq.

I guess that the Iraq war is the fault of taxpayers and servicemen.



Yes, that line of reasoning is completely specious.

Who knew that city property taxes were paying for wars! And here we all thought they were just paying communist-leaning union labour!

When did I specify city taxes? Nowhere.

You do bring up a good point though - the city that took the property was also funded by city taxes sop I guess we are also responsible for the seizure of the house by Sheila's logic.

 

[Againsheila]

If no one paid taxes we would not able to run a war in Iraq.

If no one joined the service then there would be no soldiers to go to war in Iraq.

I guess that the Iraq war is the fault of taxpayers and servicemen.



Yes, that line of reasoning is completely specious.

Who knew that city property taxes were paying for wars! And here we all thought they were just paying communist-leaning union labour!

When did I specify city taxes? Nowhere.

You do bring up a good point though - the city that took the property was also funded by city taxes sop I guess we are also responsible for the seizure of the house by Sheila's logic.

In a way we are. But we are speaking out against the terrible law that allowed this, we are not taking advantage of said law. Buying that house, at 1/2 it's value is taking advantage of the law and it's carpetbagging at it's finest.
\

 

[HenryBHough]

If no one paid taxes we would not able to run a war in Iraq.

If no one joined the service then there would be no soldiers to go to war in Iraq.

I guess that the Iraq war is the fault of taxpayers and servicemen.



Yes, that line of reasoning is completely specious.

Who knew that city property taxes were paying for wars! And here we all thought they were just paying communist-leaning union labour!

When did I specify city taxes? Nowhere.

You do bring up a good point though - the city that took the property was also funded by city taxes sop I guess we are also responsible for the seizure of the house by Sheila's logic.

You didn't have to. The topic concerned the woman's home being confiscated because of a property tax bill being unsettled. Now, if in your country, the central government that pays for wars and such also levies property taxes then you have a valid *****.

Otherwise, not so much.

 

[srlip]

no, it's not specious, but it's of course not completely accurate, either. Vets have no bit** coming when they get blown up, as long as they volunteered for it. They knew it was going to happen to SOMEBODY in a war.