Comments
icarlin412 t1_j8dsr8k wrote
Question is what happens after that, the city pockets the profits of the sale Im assuming?
throwthepearlaway t1_j8dwnbf wrote
the tax sale funds are first used to pay the existing liens on the property that caused the auction/sale. After that, the original owner is entitled to any remaining funds. They don't get pocketed by the city, at least not initially. The money just kind of...sit there in an account until claimed. According to the article, the combined balance is about $6 million sitting in the account at this time.
>If the funds are not collected by former owners within seven years, the city can seek a court order to access the money for other uses, officials said. But the city hasn’t done that in at least the last dozen years that Scrivener has been with the department, he said. “Money pretty much had been sitting in the account,” said Dorothy Reed, deputy chief of the Bureau of Revenue Collections.
Broad-Brush t1_j8dwo3i wrote
It should be going to the state's unclaimed property fund after 3 years.
ogforcebewithyou t1_j8dxtyp wrote
Sits in an account for decades
akgeekgrrl t1_j8ew09v wrote
Eventually unclaimed funds should wind up at MissingMoney. Some states run their own unclaimed property search sites, too.
My dad found a savings account that a family member created for him when he was born. Just sitting there 60 years later. I got an unemployment insurance overpayment back from my state.
Spaghetti-Bender t1_j8eyjs6 wrote
The city sold the back half of my former brother-in-law's lot (1/2 of his back yard and his entire garage) in a tax sale, since his property somehow had 2 addresses, or was two properties sold as one... I can't remember that exact detail. However, it was a rowhome, with a nice long back yard w/ a garage at the end, and the city had been sending the tax bills to 0000 Whatever St, because there was some data entry error when he bought the house. A scummy lawyer couple (were in the news and served jail time for some tax sale purchase shenanigans) from Timonium bought it up, and wanted to charge something like a $5000 fee, on top of whatever was owed to get it back.
throwthepearlaway t1_j8f23om wrote
Oh yeah, those attorneys are ruthless and there's about 4-5 firms in the City that buy almost all of the tax sales. They don't even want the properties, they're just trying to gain that temporary lien ownership so that they can charge the attorney fees on top of the liens+interest.
The attorney fees are legal, but there is a maximum amount they're allowed to charge which increases over time to a set limit. It's supposed to cover the cost of the attorney who helps the bidder, but these vultures have set themselves up as both 'the buyer' and 'the attorney', and they always charge residents exactly the maximum.
thatgeekinit t1_j8dz04h wrote
It could be worse. In NJ, the lien purchasers get to keep all the extra equity, its legalized theft from poor and elderly people to wealthy investors.
aresef OP t1_j8e1lvy wrote
that's fucked up. The most fucked up thing we have here is ground rent
Holiday_Ad_5445 t1_j8hzr0m wrote
A couple decades ago, the Baltimore City ground rent blindside vulnerabilities were mitigated by new statutes, and a streamlined redemption process was established.
Before these changes, some property owners lost their houses without notice from the new rent owner that rent was due.
Leasehold property owners should be very concerned to receive certified mail for unrelated advertisements, as the sender could claim the mail was a notice about the rent. By the time the property ownership changed hands, there was nothing the original owner could do to get it back, except to by it at an escalated price.
Leasehold property was not intended to create this hardship. Some people figured out how to abuse the law to take property without paying for it.
LiveYourDaydreams t1_j8duotm wrote
This is good information. Thanks for posting!
delendaestcarthago t1_j8ec5u7 wrote
Often there are other encumbrances on the property's title (the owner's mortgage(s) or judgments against the owner attaching to the property) that should legally be paid before the owner, so this article is oversimplifying the issue.
throwthepearlaway t1_j8eq8fx wrote
This is true. In order to claim the funds, you have to first see if there are any other claims against it. They make you search the court record for any standing suits/orders regarding the unclaimed tax sale auction funds and then certify that you have done so before they will cut you the check.
greemmako t1_j8fgbyz wrote
No. Tax sale wipes them out. These are properties where if there was a mortgage the mortgage holder said im sick of paying this persons taxes and let it go.
These funds are purely unclaimed because the people they are owed to can’t be bothered to ask for them. Much like they couldn’t be bothered to pay their taxes.
AutoModerator t1_j8dfyx6 wrote
Links from the domain present in your post are known to present a soft paywall to users. As a result, some users may have difficulty reading the linked content.
It may be helpful to provide a comment containing a synopsis or a snippet of the major points of the article in order to help those who may not be able to see it.
In accordance with the subreddit rules, please do not post the entirety of the article's contents as a comment.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
IamDollParts96 t1_j8esoqd wrote
That's straight up criminal.
throwthepearlaway t1_j8dsity wrote
Worked for a time in the revenue collections office. Mostly the problem is that the city doesn't have working addresses for these folks since the only mailing address on file is the property that was lost in the tax sale auction. I believe that they do (or used to) post a list on the website, but it's kinda buried and not easy to find.