Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Will Supreme Court Settle Sale of Tax Liens Issue?
The sale of tax liens has long been a method for the collection of delinquent property taxes, water and sewer charges, and other assessments by municipalities. An efficient market for these liens, which are often acquired by sophisticated entities holding extensive tax sale certificate portfolios, ensures that municipalities do not suffer the financial consequences of delinquent property owners. On the other hand, the statutory tax sale scheme, which awards tax sale certificates to the bidder of the lowest rate of interest on unpaid taxes, affords those same property owners an opportunity to redeem the certificates at a reasonable cost before a final tax foreclosure sale.
The Third Circuit's decision in In re Hackler and Stelzle-Hackler v. Arianna Holdings Co., LLC, 938 F.3d 473 (3d Cir. 2019), and its progeny have created a potential drag on the market for the sale of tax liens by holding that tax foreclosure sales may be avoidable as preferential and fraudulent transfers by property owners who subsequently seek relief under the United States Bankruptcy Code. While the Sixth and Seventh Circuits have joined the Third Circuit in holding likewise, the Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits have held to the contrary. If the Supreme Court eventually weighs in to resolve this circuit split, property owners, municipalities, and potential bidders for tax liens across the country will receive greater clarity on this critical issue.
The Impact of BFP
The long line of cases involving the avoidance of tax foreclosure sales, which has accelerated in recent years, is the natural extension of the Supreme Court's decision in BFP v. Resolution Trust Corp., 511 U.S. 531 (1994). There, the court held that the amount received at a non-collusive mortgage foreclosure sale constituted "reasonably equivalent value" and thus rendered such sale unassailable as a fraudulent transfer under Section 548 of the Bankruptcy Code.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.