A short one (unpublished) from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in a Tyler taking case (an issue that seems like it is on a lot of courts’ minds right now).
In Wayside Church v. Van Buren County, No. 24-1598 (Oct. 6, 2025), the court affirmed the district court’s certification of class certification and the subsequent class settlement. This issue is only of mild interest to us, and it isn’t reason we’re posting this case.
What really grabs our attention is Judge Kethledge’s concurring opinion (scroll down to page 23 of the pdf). It is not only a good overview of the home equity theft takings issue, but also points out how the just compensation rules actually work to keep property owners from receiving full compensation for what they have lost, especially in a class action settlement situation compared to a non-class section 1983 claim:
To make that gap concrete, compare Wayside Church’s recovery under this settlement with the judgment it likely would have received as an individual plaintiff in a § 1983 suit. Again, to satisfy a tax debt of $16,750, Van Buren sold Wayside’s property in August 2014 for $206,000. Wayside is constitutionally entitled to the full surplus of $189,250. Wayside would also receive about $105,000 in prejudgment interest, assuming a rate of 5%—representing the value that the county obtained (and Wayside lost) by holding that $189,250 for some 11 years now. And the county, rather than Wayside itself, would pay Wayside’s attorneys’ fees. (Surely no district court would exercise its discretion to the contrary.) So, in an individual suit, Wayside would receive almost $300,000, and the county would pay its attorneys’ fees. But in this settlement Wayside gets only $121,120—with the county retaining most of the difference.
Slip op. at 243 (Kethlege, J., concurring).
The remainder of Judge Kethlege’s opinion should not be overlooked, especially the part where he calls out the government defendants’ response to the litigation:
In closing, what is most remarkable, in the litigation of these claims over the past eight years, is the counties’ complete lack of remorse. Their victims for the most part were their own residents; and what the counties forcibly and unlawfully took from them sometimes amounted to their life savings. The facts of Wayside’s case and many others truly shock the conscience; and yet, apparently, none of these county officials ever asked whether they should keep, for example, $206,000 in property to pay off a resident’s $16,750 tax debt. Instead, the counties kept all this property “simply because the Michigan General Property Tax Act said [they] could.” Hall v. Meisner, 51 F.4th 185, 194 (6th Cir. 2022). After the Supreme Court (and our court) told these counties that their actions violated the federal Constitution, every one of them could have simply returned the property they took; the counties can bear the financial burdens of their own transgressions more easily than these unfortunate individuals can bear them. But instead the counties have employed every available legal artifice to keep as much of that money as they possibly can. As a technical, legal matter, that was their right; and yet one can be disappointed. Local governments should serve their people, not prey upon them.
Slip op. at 26. Be sure to check it out.
Wayside Church v. Van Buren County, No. 24-1598 (6th Cir. Oct. 6, 2025) (unpub.)