By Quinn W. Gray, Esq.

Trott Law, P.C. *

USFN Member (IN, MI, MN)

For nearly 250 years, tax foreclosure sales have been used to help recover delinquent property taxes in the United States. In Pung v. Isabella County, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the validity of such sales and rejected an argument that threatened to disrupt foreclosure practices nationwide.

In 2004, the Pung family believed they would receive a property tax exemption for their home in Isabella County, Michigan. The County revoked the exemption and when the family refused to pay back taxes, the County began foreclosure proceedings.

Before the tax foreclosure sale, the County determined the property was worth $194,400. The property sold for just $76,008 and was resold 18 months later by the purchaser for $195,000.

A member of the Pung family filed a lawsuit challenging the validity of the tax foreclosure process, and in February 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court considered the following questions:

1.     Should the measure of compensation paid to a tax foreclosed party be based on the fair market value of the property, or the value obtained at the tax foreclosure sale?

2.     Does the tax foreclosure of a property worth more than the taxes owed constitute an excessive fine?

Pung suggested that compensation should be measured by a property’s fair market value at the time of foreclosure, and any tax foreclosure of a property worth more than the taxes owed is an excessive fine. The lack of precedent supporting these arguments proved to be fatal.

In the Court’s nearly 250-year history, it has never stated that a fair market value analysis is appropriate in this context. Nor has it ever construed taxation as a fine. Rather, several cases cited by the Court support opposite conclusions.

In siding with the County, the Court held that the appropriate measure of just compensation is the price obtained at the tax foreclosure sale, so long as the sale is fairly conducted. The Court also agreed with the County on the excessive fine question. The Court remanded the case to the 6th Circuit for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.   

The Impact of this Opinion

By rejecting Pung’s argument, the Court confirmed that governments may continue to use tax foreclosures as a debt collection tool, but potential issues on remand could still impact foreclosure practices.

Notably, in Pung’s merits briefing and at oral argument, he suggested that the County should have attempted to recover the unpaid taxes by less drastic means, such as seizing and selling Pung’s personal property.

In Justice Thomas’s concurrence, he questioned the County’s decision to sell the property. While this issue was not before the Court, Thomas made his thoughts on the process very clear. “What Isabella County did to the Pungs was wrong, and, on my initial view, likely unconstitutional.”

For more information, you can view the full opinion here.

Copyright © 2026 USFN

USFNews - June 24, 2026

By Brian H.Liebo, Esq.

Liebo, Weingarden, Dobie & Barbee, PLLP

USFN Member (MN)

The mortgage is in default and in foreclosure. Coincidentally, the house mysteriously burns down. What appears to be just terribly bad luck for a borrower may turn out to be far more sinister-- arson. In these instances, a mortgage servicer needs to quickly focus on hazard insurance claim issues, in addition to foreclosing the mortgage.  A critical issue with fire damage cases, and other hazard insurance, is whether the foreclosure should be completed without regard to a pending hazard insurance claim.

When a home in foreclosure burns down, the mortgage servicer should not automatically rush to complete the foreclosure. Instead, the mortgage servicer should fully resolve the hazard policy claim and obtain the claim proceeds before having the sheriff’s sale conducted. Speeding to sale and improperly handling the hazard claim process can have more than one detrimental impact, including full loss of coverage. Specifically, the Minnesota Court of Appeals has held that where a mortgagee forecloses its mortgage after the date of the hazard loss and bids full debt, the mortgagee may forfeit its separate rights under the mortgage clause of a fire insurance policy.

In the pivotal case, Margaretten & Co. v Illinois Farmers Ins. Co., 526 N.W.2d 389 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995), a fire destroyed the mortgaged property. The insurer denied the homeowner’s claim for insurance proceeds because the owners caused the fire. The mortgagee filed a claim for its own insurance benefits under the terms of the hazard insurance policy. However, the insurer also denied the mortgagee’s claim because the mortgagee refused to give the insurer a partial assignment of the mortgage equal to the insurance benefits payment. The insurer was trying to preserve its own right of subrogation for the arson. The mortgagee ultimately foreclosed on the delinquent mortgage and bid in the full debt amount at the sheriff’s sale. After the lender sued to recover the insurance proceeds, the Court held the insurer was right to deny the claim, and it was justified in requiring the mortgagee to give a partial assignment of the mortgage that would have balanced the parties’ interests. This result makes clear that a mortgage servicer with a pending hazard loss should not complete a foreclosure until it is sure it has satisfied all insurance policy requirements and fully resolved its claim with the insurer.

It is important to note that Minnesota has a short, two-year statute of limitations period for insurance loss claims.  In fact, it is necessary to not just make a claim within two (2) years from the date of loss, but also commence a lawsuit within two years from the date of loss to compel coverage and ensure all policy rights are preserved by the lender.

While a foreclosure can be a complicated enough process, throwing in a large hazard loss such as arson can create a process full of pitfalls and peril. Hence, the safest approach, wherever possible, is for a servicer to fully resolve hazard-loss claims and funds with both the insurers and borrowers, respectively, before completing foreclosures. Doing so may help prevent not only losses of coverage, but also protracted litigation.

Copyright @2022

Fall 2022 USFN Report