A man who owned property in Huntington claims Baker County violated his constitutional rights by keeping the proceeds when the county sold the property after seizing the land because the owner fell behind on property taxes.

Jerry Baker filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Pendleton.

Baker, who is represented by Portland attorney Michael Zhang and two attorneys from Los Angeles, filed a class action lawsuit seeking monetary relief for himself and for others with similar situations.

The amount of the monetary award would be determined at a jury trial, which Baker is asking for.

“(Baker County) has a longstanding policy of seizing properties that owe property taxes, auctioning them for substantially more than the money owed, and keeping all the profits for itself,” the lawsuit states. “The county’s policy deprives residents of all the equity that they accrued in their property.”

Zhang argues that this policy violates the “takings clause” in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states that private property can’t be taken for public use “without just compensation.”

Although Zhang filed the lawsuit on Sept. 7, according to court records he sent a copy of the complaint to Kim Mosier, the county’s attorney, on Tuesday, Dec. 3.

Baker County commissioners had a special meeting Thursday afternoon, Dec. 5, at the courthouse.

Commissioners discussed the lawsuit during an executive session, which is closed to the public as allowed under Oregon’s Public Meetings Law.

(Commissioners can discuss pending or current litigation with attorneys during an executive session, but they can’t make any decision during an executive session.)

Commissioners then returned to public session and voted 3-0 to authorize any of the commissioners to sign a document seeking to hire Portland attorneys Thomas Christ and Tab Wood to represent the county in the lawsuit, as Mosier recommended.

Those two attorneys represent Josephine County in a nearly identical lawsuit filed in October 2023.

Zhang also represents the plaintiffs in that suit, Matthew and Kelly Gabbert, who owned property in Grants Pass and, like Baker, fell behind on paying property taxes.

In both the Gabbert and Baker cases, Zhang cites a May 2023 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court.

In that case, Tyler v. Hennepin County (Minnesota), the Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, concluded that Hennepin County violated the takings clause in the Fifth Amendment..

The court, which overruled lower courts that had dismissed the case, concluded that Hennepin County should have given the property owner a chance to recoup the difference between the property tax debt and the proceeds of the property sale after the county seized the property.

Oregon law prescribes how counties must spend proceeds from the sale of a property seized through property tax foreclosure.

After the county has paid for costs associated with the seizure, including potentially maintaining the property and preparing it for sale, state law requires that remaining money be distributed to taxing districts within the county that receive a share of property taxes.

In response to the Supreme Court ruling in the Minnesota case, Baker County commissioners in February 2024 adopted a policy regarding the disposition of properties the county takes through tax foreclosure. The policy states that the county, within 60 days of taking a property through foreclosure, will give the previous owner a chance to make a deal, within 30 days, to buy back the property. If that doesn’t happen, the county would decide within one year whether to keep or sell the property.

The new policy also allows the prior owner, after the county sells a foreclosed property, to claim a share of the sale proceeds. This applies only to property the county acquires after the policy took effect, Feb. 7, 2024.

According to the county’s website, the county owns 28 parcels it seized through foreclosure.

Baker County case

In the Baker County lawsuit, the plaintiff, Jerry Baker, bought the property at 245 E. Madison St. in Huntington in 1999, according to the lawsuit.

Baker fell behind on paying property taxes starting in 2013. The county seized the property in 2018. The tax debt, including interest, fees and penalties, was $3,198.

Baker had a chance to reclaim the property by paying the debt, but he didn’t do so.

The county then sold the parcel in September 2022 for $38,000, “reaping a windfall of $34,801.57,” according to the lawsuit.

The situation is basically the same in the Gabbert case in Josephine County.

Christ and Wood, the attorneys Baker County is interested in hiring, filed a motion to dismiss that complaint.

In the motion the attorneys argued that the Supreme Court decision in the Tyler v. Hennepin County doesn’t apply because Minnesota’s tax laws are different from Oregon’s.

The attorneys wrote in their motion that in Oregon, property owners can keep their property by paying the debt, including taxes, interest and penalties, during a two-year period after the county starts the foreclosure process.

Property owners can also argue — as the plaintiffs in the Josephine County case did — that they have a right to receive any surplus if the property sale price exceeds the tax debt.

“Those options, unavailable in Minnesota, distinguish this case from Tyler (v. Hennepin County),” the attorneys wrote in their motion to dismiss the Josephine County lawsuit.

A judge has not ruled on that motion.

Other related cases in Oregon

Christ and Wood, the attorneys Baker County is interested in hiring, also represented Lane County in a case similar to the Josephine County and Baker County cases.

The Lane County case, Foshee v. Lane County, was filed March 11, 2024.

Mallory Beebe, an attorney with the Lane County Office of Legal Counsel, filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit (Christ and Wood became involved in defending Lane County later).

On Aug. 26, 2024, U.S. District Judge Michael McShane granted the motion and dismissed the complaint.

The judge dismissed one claim without prejudice, meaning the plaintiff could file a new suit on that basis, and the three other claims with prejudice, meaning those issues can’t be part of a new lawsuit.

McShane concluded that the plaintiff failed to file the lawsuit within Oregon’s statutes of limitations — six years for claims of unconstitutional takings, and two years for personal injury actions.

McShane wrote in his ruling that Lane County took ownership of the property in September 2017, but the lawsuit wasn’t filed until March 2024 — more than six years later.

McShane also referenced the Supreme Court decision in Tyler v. Hennepin County. The judge wrote that that case “did not rewrite the rules concerning Plaintiff’s duty to timely file her lawsuit.”

In the Baker County lawsuit, by contrast, the plaintiff filed the lawsuit on Sept. 7, 2024, slightly less than six years after Baker County took ownership of the Huntington property, on Sept. 28, 2018.