We have settled for $109 Million the Tyler v Hennepin County, Minnesota class action lawsuit that we won in the U.S. Supreme Court. Read more about the settlement below, or go to the official settlement website at https://mntaxforfeituresettlement.com/ to learn more.
DID YOU LOSE YOUR MINNESOTA PROPERTY BECAUSE YOU DIDN’T PAY PROPERTY TAXES?
You could get money from a Class Action Settlement.
Philadelphia, PA, September 9, 2024 /PRNewswire/ — — The following statement is being issued by Kroll Settlement Administration regarding the Minnesota Property Forfeiture Settlement.
WHAT IS THIS LAWSUIT ABOUT?
The lawsuit claims that property owners, their heirs or parties in interest, were not paid the value of their interest in the forfeited property to the extent the value exceeded the amount of property taxes and associated charges owed. The case is called Tyler v. Hennepin County, Case No. 62-CV- 19-6012, Ramsey County, filed August 16, 2019, and is pending in Ramsey County District Court, Second Judicial District of Minnesota.
WHO IS INCLUDED?
You are included in the settlement as a Class Member and may be entitled to money if you owned or held an interest in property that was forfeited in Minnesota for non-payment of property taxes as follows:
• Hennepin County: August 16, 2012 – December 31, 2023.
• St. Louis County: June 2, 2016 – December 31, 2023.
• All Other Minnesota Counties: June 23, 2016 – December 31, 2023.
Examples of interests in real property include ownership or a mortgage or other type of lien. If the original owner or interest holder is deceased or an entity that no longer exists, their heirs or successors may be eligible for payment under the settlement.
WHAT DOES THE SETTLEMENT PROVIDE?
Class Members who submit a valid claim will receive up to 90% of the surplus value of the forfeited property, measured by either the sales price of the property or the assessor’s fair market value, plus interest, less taxes and associated charges owed, and unless reduced proportionately to cover costs of the settlement as described below. Mineral rights owners will receive a flat $300 plus interest. If multiple valid claims are made for surplus value from a property, and the total settlement payment must be allocated among the claimants, the total amount available to be paid on the property will be capped at 90% of the surplus value. All claims must be submitted and validated before any claims will be paid.
WHAT ARE YOUR RIGHTS?
• File a Claim: You must file a claim to receive money from the settlement. You may file your Claim Form online or download a claim form at MNTaxForeclosureSettlement.com. Claims must be submitted online by 5 p.m. CDT on June 6, 2025 or mailed postmarked by June 6, 2025.
• Do Nothing, Object, or Exclude Yourself (“Opt-out”): If you do nothing, you will not receive money, but will be legally bound by decisions of the Court and give up any right to sue for the claims resolved by this settlement. If you object to the settlement, you may still be eligible for compensation. Objections must be received by November 8, 2024. If you exclude yourself, you will not receive money but you keep the right to sue for the claims resolved by this settlement. Exclusions must be received by November 8, 2024.
For details on how to file a claim, object, or exclude yourself (“opt-out”), visit MNTaxForfeitureSettlement.com, or call 1‐833‐709‐0093.
WHEN IS THE FAIRNESS HEARING?
The Court will hold a hearing on December 16, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. CT. The hearing is only available at www.Zoom.com (Meeting ID: 1613987753; Passcode: 682377). Class members may observe the hearing but are not required to. To observe the hearing, you must label yourself as an “Observer” (for instructions on how to change your label visit https://support.zoom.com/hc/en/article?id=zm_kb&sysparm_article=KB0061891). There will not be an in-person hearing. Please consult the Settlement website closer to the hearing date for more details and further information. The Court will hear any objections, determine if the Settlement is fair, and consider attorney’s fees and expenses of 15% of the settlement fund, plus 8% of the claims actually paid. The total amount of fees cannot be calculated until all claims have been submitted and validated. The motion for attorneys’ fees and expenses will be posted to the settlement website after it is filed.
This is only a summary. If you have questions or want more information about this lawsuit, the Settlement, and your rights under the Settlement, visit MNTaxForfeitureSettlement.com, call 1‐ 833‐709‐0093, or write to: Tyler v. Hennepin County c/o Kroll Settlement Administration, P.O. Box 225391, New York, NY 10150‐5391.
###
Source: Kroll Settlement Administration
Media Contacts:
Garrett D. Blanchfield, Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield, 651-287-2100 and Vildan A. Teske, Teske Law PLLC, 612-767-0521
Vildan Teske, Garrett Blanchfield and David Guin at Supreme Court
GSE attorneys Charles Watkins and David Guin, along with their Minnesota co-counsel (Vildan Teske of Teske Law PLLC and Garrett Blanchfield and Roberta Yard of Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield), were recently name 2023 Attorneys of the Year by the Minnesota Lawyer magazine. https://minnlawyer.com/2024/02/09/2023-attorneys-of-the-year-tyler-v-hennepin-county/
Watkins, Guin and their co-counsel obtained a unanimous 9-0 decision from the United States Supreme Court in Tyler v. Hennepin County, holding that a Minnesota law allowing local governments to seize all the equity in a home over much smaller property tax debts is unconstitutional. Read the Supreme Court opinion here.
The Court ruled that when the government takes a person’s home equity to satisfy a property tax debt, it violates the Constitution’s “Takings Clause”, which bars the government from taking private property without paying just compensation.
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts said “A taxpayer who loses her $40,000 house to the State to fulfill a $15,000 tax debt has made a far greater contribution to the public fisc than she owed. The taxpayer must render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, but no more.”
Co-Counsel in front of the U.S. Supreme Court after oral arguments
Additionally, Justice Gorsuch’s concurring opinion (joined by Justice Jackson) concluded that home equity theft may also violate the Constitution’s Excessive Fines Clause, which limits the amount governments can take as punishment for an offense. He said “Economic penalties imposed to deter willful noncompliance with the law are fines by any other name. And the Constitution has something to say about them: They cannot be excessive.”
Charles Watkins and David Guin of GSE, along with Vildan Teske of Teske Law PLLC and Garrett Blanchfield of Reinhardt, Wendorf & Blanchfield filed and have primary responsibility for the Tyler case. At the Supreme Court, they were joined by the Pacific Legal Foundation and Christina Martin, who argued the case before the Court.
GSE is pursuing class action lawsuits in various states and counties on behalf of property owners whose properties were seized by a local government for property taxes. If you or your client has been the subject of a governmental foreclosure, please contact Charles Watkins or David Guin if you would like to learn more about your rights and options.
In a 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court in one of GSE’s several governmental equity theft cases, Tyler v. Hennepin County, ruled that a Minnesota law allowing local governments to seize all the equity in a home over much smaller property tax debts is unconstitutional. Read the Supreme Court opinion here.
The Court ruled that when the government takes a person’s home equity to satisfy a property tax debt, it violates the Constitution’s “Takings Clause”, which bars the government from taking private property without paying just compensation.
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts said “A taxpayer who loses her $40,000 house to the State to fulfill a $15,000 tax debt has made a far greater contribution to the public fisc than she owed. The taxpayer must render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, but no more.”
Additionally, Justice Gorsuch’s concurring opinion (joined by Justice Jackson) concluded that home equity theft may also violate the Constitution’s Excessive Fines Clause, which limits the amount governments can take as punishment for an offense. He said “Economic penalties imposed to deter willful noncompliance with the law are fines by any other name. And the Constitution has something to say about them: They cannot be excessive.”
Charles Watkins and David Guin of GSE, along with Vildan Teske of Teske Law PLLC and Garrett Blanchfield of Reinhardt, Wendorf & Blanchfield filed and have primary responsibility for the Tyler case. At the Supreme Court, they were joined by the Pacific Legal Foundation and Christina Martin, who argued the case before the Court.
GSE is pursuing class action lawsuits in various states and counties on behalf of property owners whose properties were seized by a local government for property taxes. If you or your client has been the subject of a governmental foreclosure, please contact Charles Watkins or David Guin if you would like to learn more about your rights and options.
2022 has been a difficult year for anyone who relies on their investment portfolio, whether for retirement, college savings, or supplemental income. The pandemic, fallout from the war in Ukraine, backed up supply chains, and Federal Reserve policy have combined to create a perfect storm for securities markets. While the volatile markets of 2022 have been felt by most investors, some have paid an even higher price due to “unsuitable” recommendations by their brokers.
“Suitability” refers simply to the requirement under securities laws that brokers only recommend trades to their customers that are suitable for each such customer, given their individual needs and risk tolerances. For example, a speculative, high risk, investment could be a viable option for a young person with many years left before retirement to recoup any losses. But someone in their 60’s nearing retirement cannot afford to risk their portfolio in the same way. The law accordingly requires brokers to tailor their recommendations to their customers’ needs and risk tolerances.
This year many investors have discovered that their brokers were speculating with their money in risky cryptocurrencies or in so-called “meme” stocks, such as AMC and GameStop. While the market may have been down across the board, investments in these sorts of particularly speculative gambles have cost some investors their entire life savings.
In addition, the broker is duty-bound to fully understand any recommended investments. This year, for example, has seen one of the worst years for bond investments in history. But some investors who thought they had bought garden-variety, conservative bonds were, in actuality, sold complex derivative investments that have compounded their losses.
If you have lost inordinate amounts in your investment accounts, our attorneys will be happy to review your accounts and the recommendations by your brokers and to advise you of your rights.
The Wall Street Journal has published a story on how investors have been burned by complex securities in the recent volatility in the stock markets. These securities may take the form of supposed “Certificates of Deposit” or “Notes”, that give the appearance of secure debt investments, but which, in actuality, are highly leveraged investments tied to stock market indices and to complex algorithms tied to the differential between various interest rate differentials. Institutional investors largely avoid these types of investments, so unscrupulous brokers have foisted them on trusting individual clients. Most such brokers did not fully understand the nature and risks of these investments, and accordingly, failed to fulfill their legal obligation to recommend only investments that are suitable for their clients needs. Our firm is representing investors who have seen their savings destroyed by these sorts of investments. Read more here.
Tammy Stokes will speak on November 30, 2018 on the fundamentals of antitrust law and litigation at the Class Actions and Business Litigation seminar sponsored by Cumberland School of Law
Guin Stokes & Evans, LLC is pleased to announce that every partner in the firm has been named to The Best Lawyers in America, one of the oldest and most respected peer review publications in the legal profession. In addition, firm partner David Guin was named the Birmingham-Securities Litigation “Lawyer of the Year.”
Best Lawyers has published their list for over three decades, earning the respect of the profession, the media, and the public as the most reliable, unbiased source of legal referrals. Its first international list was published in 2006 and since then has grown to provide lists in over 70 countries.
“Best Lawyers is the most effective tool in identifying critical legal expertise,” said Best Lawyers CEO Steven Naifeh. “Inclusion on this list shows that an attorney is respected by his or her peers for professional success.”
Lawyers on the Best Lawyers in America list are divided by geographic region and practice areas. They are reviewed by their peers on the basis of professional expertise, and undergo an authentication process to make sure they are in current practice and in good standing.
Guin Stokes & Evans, LLC would like to congratulate the following partners named to the 2018 Best Lawyers in America list:
David Guin
- Commercial Litigation
- Securities Litigation [Lawyer of the Year – 2018]
- Class Actions – Plaintiff
Tammy Stokes
Dawn Evans
- Securities Litigation
- Real Estate Litigation
Guin Stokes & Evans, LLC congratulates firm partner David Guin for being named the Best Lawyers’ 2018 Birmingham Litigation – Securities “Lawyer of the Year”. Only a single lawyer in each practice area in each community is honored as “Lawyer of the Year”.
Guin was also selected by his peers for inclusion in the 24th Edition of The Best Lawyers in America publication in the fields of Commercial Litigation and Plaintiff Class Actions.
Guin Stokes & Evans, LLC congratulates firm partner Dawn Evans for again being selected by her peers for inclusion in the 24th Edition of The Best Lawyers in America for her work in Litigation – Real Estate, and Litigation – Securities.
U.S. News & World Report and Best Lawyers, for the seventh consecutive year, announced their Best Law Firms rankings, and once again, has included Guin, Stokes & Evans, LLC. We are included in the “Tier 1” listing for Commercial Litigation and Securities Litigation, and in the Tier 2 listing for Real Estate Litigation.
Additionally, David Guin was listed in The Best Lawyers in America© for Commercial Litigation and Securities Litigation, and Dawn Stith Evans was listed for Securities Litigation and Real Estate Litigation.
Firms included in the 2017 Best Law Firms list are recognized for professional excellence with persistently impressive ratings from clients and peers. Achieving a tiered ranking signals a unique combination of quality law practice and breadth of legal expertise.
“U.S. News is the global authority in rankings,” says Tim Smart, executive editor of U.S. News & World Report. “Evaluating law firms is a natural extension of what we do best.”
The 2017 rankings are based on the highest number of participating firms and highest number of client ballots on record. To be eligible for a ranking, a firm must have a lawyer listed in The Best Lawyers in America, which recognizes the top 4 percent of practicing attorneys in the U.S. Over 10,000 attorneys provided more than 800,000 law firm assessments, and over 10,000 clients provided more than 90,000 evaluations.
In a 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court in one of GSE’s several governmental equity theft cases, Tyler v. Hennepin County, ruled that a Minnesota law allowing local governments to seize all the equity in a home over much smaller property tax debts is unconstitutional. Read the 
Tammy Stokes will speak on November 30, 2018 on the fundamentals of antitrust law and litigation at the Class Actions and Business Litigation seminar sponsored by Cumberland School of Law
Guin Stokes & Evans, LLC congratulates firm partner 
