House Siezed and Sold Over $6 in unpaid interest

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Ahtman**

Source

BEAVER, Pa. (AP) — A widow was given ample notice before her $280,000 house was sold at a tax auction three years ago over $6.30 in unpaid interest, a Pennsylvania judge has ruled.

The decision last week turned down Eileen Battisti's request to reverse the September 2011 sale of her home outside Aliquippa in western Pennsylvania.

"I paid everything, and didn't know about the $6.30," Battisti said. "For the house to be sold just because of $6.30 is crazy."

Battisti, who still lives in the house, said Monday that she plans to appeal to Commonwealth Court. That court earlier ordered an evidentiary hearing, which led to last week's ruling.

Beaver County Common Pleas Judge Gus Kwidis wrote that the county tax claim bureau complied with notification requirements in state law before the auction. She had previously owed other taxes, but at the time of the sale she owed just $235, including other interest and fees.

"There is no doubt that (she) had actual receipt of the notification of the tax upset sale on July 7, 2011, and Aug. 16, 2011," the judge wrote. "Moreover, on Aug. 12, 2011, a notice of sale was sent by first class mail and was not returned."
The property sold for about $116,000, and most of that money will be paid to Battisti if further appeals are unsuccessful. An attorney for the purchaser did not return a phone message on Monday.

Joe Askar, Beaver County's chief solicitor, said the judge got the decision right, based on the law.

"The county never wants to see anybody lose their home, but at the same time the tax sale law, the tax real estate law, doesn't give a whole lot of room for error, either," Askar said.

Battisti said her husband handled the paperwork for the property's taxes before he passed away in 2004.

"It's bad — she had some hard times, I guess her husband kind of took care of a lot of that stuff," Askar said. "It seemed that she was having a hard time coping with the loss of her husband — that just made it set in a little more."

**Orlanth**

It's fairer than it looks.

The law cant let people off taxes, even if the amounts are unfair, the tax is due or it is not.

When it comes down to pay $6 or lose your home, you pay $6, because if you continue not to then assets can be seized.

That being said they could have repossessed her TV or something and sold that rather than the house.

**kronk**

I think if I'm about to sell someone's home from under them, it's worth a phone call or more than 2 letters.

That's a lot of work to sell a home. I'm all about the lazy approach.

**Jihadin**

They buy the house site unseen and as is?

**Orlanth**

kronk wrote:
I think if I'm about to sell someone's home from under them, it's worth a phone call or more than 2 letters.

That's a lot of work to sell a home. I'm all about the lazy approach.

that is part of the idiocy, it costs more in time and paperwork than it is worth to collect small sums in tax, but the alternative is to write off payment which leads to a can of worms far wrigglier than chasing small sums.

There probably is a non collection threshold, but it is likely to be less than $1, anything larger and smart accountants will find ways to parse down taxable sums into multiple instances of non-collectable amounts.

The whole is a lot more complex than the article conveys, and they haven't adequately explained if it was a $6.30 settlement or the somewhat more substantial $235 that caused the seizure of property..

**loki old fart**

Orlanth wrote:
kronk wrote:
I think if I'm about to sell someone's home from under them, it's worth a phone call or more than 2 letters.

That's a lot of work to sell a home. I'm all about the lazy approach.

that is part of the idiocy, it costs more in time and paperwork than it is worth to collect small sums in tax, but the alternative is to write off payment which leads to a can of worms far wrigglier than chasing small sums.

There probably is a non collection threshold, but it is likely to be less than $1, anything larger and smart accountants will find ways to parse down taxable sums into multiple instances of non-collectable amounts.

The whole is a lot more complex than the article conveys, and they haven't adequately explained if it was a $6.30 settlement or the somewhat more substantial $235 that caused the seizure of property..

I once had a water company threaten to cut of my water over30p. I was due to pay things the next day anyway. Shame the stamp on the letter cost more than they got.

**Orlanth**

loki old fart wrote:

I once had a water company threaten to cut of my water over30p. I was due to pay things the next day anyway. Shame the stamp on the letter cost more than they got.

Automated latter yes?

As its not a tax that can be written off anyway.

**Soladrin**

I. What.

Well done.

**SagesStone**

Sounds like it has some shady undertone to it.

**KingCracker**

loki old fart wrote:
Orlanth wrote:
kronk wrote:
I think if I'm about to sell someone's home from under them, it's worth a phone call or more than 2 letters.

That's a lot of work to sell a home. I'm all about the lazy approach.

that is part of the idiocy, it costs more in time and paperwork than it is worth to collect small sums in tax, but the alternative is to write off payment which leads to a can of worms far wrigglier than chasing small sums.

There probably is a non collection threshold, but it is likely to be less than $1, anything larger and smart accountants will find ways to parse down taxable sums into multiple instances of non-collectable amounts.

The whole is a lot more complex than the article conveys, and they haven't adequately explained if it was a $6.30 settlement or the somewhat more substantial $235 that caused the seizure of property..

I once had a water company threaten to cut of my water over30p. I was due to pay things the next day anyway. Shame the stamp on the letter cost more than they got.

I received a 12cent check from direcTV when we switched due to money they owed us. I laughed and kept the check just because it's postage on the letter was 40 cents

but it might sound unfair going back on topic but these things have to be done, and saying my husband took care of that isn't a good enough excuse.

**timetowaste85**

I believe she also said she wasn't aware of that $6 and that everything else was paid. If the rest was paid, and that $6 somehow got missed (we're human, we make mistakes), does she deserve to lose everything? Call her up, or something and let her know she's still short a bit. Sounds like a mistake on her part that the tax collectors took advantage of. Of course, blame the victim is alive and well today, kudos, gentlemen.

**Jihadin**

If only she was armed...

**CptJake**

One thing I take away from this is that being a property owner/home owner is often just an illusion. Taxing real property you have 'owned' for decades and in some cases generations and being able to confiscate that property over those taxes is really a scary thought.

**Jihadin**

When I brought my house that was one of the issues/subject I hammered over to ensure I was not going to get blind sided, bit in the arse, and/or slammed on. Property tax, county tax, and slew other crap that any form of State, County, Federal, maybe also Ordinance can get me on.

**d-usa**

If only she had an armed militia.

**Ouze**

Orlanth wrote:
It's fairer than it looks.

The law cant let people off taxes, even if the amounts are unfair, the tax is due or it is not..

I think the phrase you are looking for is "Dura lex, sed lex".

It seems to me a lien would have handled this adequately.

d-usa wrote:
If only she had an armed militia.

Indeed, I think we've now established that if you declare you don't recognize the government and arm yourself heavily enough, you're essentially exempt from fees, taxes, and fines due.

**Chongara**

I love the article starts "A widow", you know we're in for an objective article. Anyway on the one hand I like taxes. I like them on general principle and the specific things that benefit me from them. I think people should have to pay taxes and the government is well within its rights to enforce tax law, with a heavy hand even. That property seizures over paltry sums is probably bad policy, garnish wages or something.

**d-usa**

Chongara wrote:
I love the article starts "A widow", you know we're in for an objective article.

Her status as a "widow" is actually relevant to the case in this instance though.

**Jihadin**

Indeed, I think we've now established that if you declare you don't recognize the government and arm yourself heavily enough, you're essentially exempt from fees, taxes, and fines due.

Your good to go with this chain of thought. If you act on it though then that's a different ball game unless the Fed's engage you first. Now if you have a bunch of individuals get together in a cause and then act on it where you fall into the ole "foreign and domestic" and wind up catching a Hellfire in your crotch.

If not try to look important so you can be knee capped instead of killed.....Intell be the goal

**Medium of Death**

Ridiculous outcome and the judge is clearly a witch.

It's amazing that the rich are allowed to dodge taxes but this woman has her home sold from under he for tax amounting to 6ish dollars.

But they did send her a letter so she probably asked for this to happen...

**insaniak**

loki old fart wrote:
I once had a water company threaten to cut of my water over30p. I was due to pay things the next day anyway. Shame the stamp on the letter cost more than they got.

Australia's major telephone company used to do similar... there was a rash of people at one point receiving disconnection notices that were for (due to rounding or somesuch silliness) $0.00.

They eventually changed their system to not require payment until your next bill if the amount owing was under a certain amount. When I switched from their service a little over a decade ago now, the final bill somehow wound up with 3c remaining on it. They send me a letter every year or two to remind me that I owe them 3c that I don't need to pay until my next bill...

**creeping-deth87**

Being a Canadian, I don't know all that much about how the law works in the United States but I have to ask... how the hell was it not more expensive than $6 to actually go through all this?

**Bullockist**

Telstra , what a company

Automatically Appended Next Post:

insaniak wrote:
loki old fart wrote:
I once had a water company threaten to cut of my water over30p. I was due to pay things the next day anyway. Shame the stamp on the letter cost more than they got.

Australia's major telephone company used to do similar... there was a rash of people at one point receiving disconnection notices that were for (due to rounding or somesuch silliness) $0.00.

They eventually changed their system to not require payment until your next bill if the amount owing was under a certain amount. When I switched from their service a little over a decade ago now, the final bill somehow wound up with 3c remaining on it. They send me a letter every year or two to remind me that I owe them 3c that I don't need to pay until my next bill...

**Ouze**

One of the companies I used to support has operations all over Australia - Mossvale, Brisbane, Perth, and so on. As a result I used to deal with Telstra every night. I do not miss it.

**sebster**

Orlanth wrote:
As its not a tax that can be written off anyway.

Minor debts get written off or rolled over all the time. At one local government I worked at part of my job was to review the list compiled by the senior rates officer, before the Director of Finance submitted it to council. Most amounts were only a few dollars, typically the result of the full interest on a debt not being calculated when a statement was sent to a ratepayer, or a small error made by a ratepayer in their payment, which would normally be added to their bill the next year, except they sold the house and the matter wasn't worth pursuing.

The most I ever saw written off was about a thousand, after the rates dept screwed up and didn't properly report the outstanding rate when a house was sold, and now the owner had disappeared.

But basically the process with an outstanding debt is to simply let the debt accrue, and add it to their bill each year. Technically we could take action and force sale a house after three years of rates had been left unpaid, but that was in no-one's interest. The only time I ever saw legal action take place was when a business declared bankruptcy, and the council acted to make sure it got its money as part of the sale of assets (which it did, council rates are rated higher than most all other outstanding debts in a legal action).

Anyhow, what happened in this case is completely bizarre. It's legal, but a million miles from the way government normally looks to resolve these matters, especially for something as trivial as $6. My guess is that some genius appointee has come in to a new role, and decided that in order to improve revenue he was going to crack down hard on unpaid debts, and didn't bother to listen to people who understood why the system works as it does. And the end result is likely tens thousands of dollars spent in claiming, auctioning and selling a house in order to recover $6.

**Captain Avatar**

If Pennsylvania property taxing authorities behave like their state sales tax office then this was most likely shady.

Just an example here:
Receive paperwork/notice of sales tax due.
Send what is owed back in envelope provided by them.
Checks get cashed yet never noted on books so we get a "late fee" assessed.
Point out that they cashed check before end of tax cycle. They apply payment but refuse to take off "Late Fee"
"Late fee" triggers another "Late Fee" every quarter that it is not paid. Even when you have record stating that you are disputing the original.

They're excuse was that it was our mistake by sending a check back to them in the envelope provided. That we should have filed electronically.
Didn't stop them from cashing the check before the due date.

Several states have sales tax offices that exhibit the same behavior......

FYI, Texas homesteading provides the best protection for homeowners in the country though still won't protect over back taxes. Though the ammount has to be up in the thousands before they act to auction off the property. Even if auctioned of in Texas the delinquent owner has two years to pay the past due amount + 10% and they get the house back.