91-Year-Old Pennsylvania Woman With Dementia Loses $247,000 Home Over a $14,000 Tax Debt

In yet another example of what is colloquially known as home equity theft, a 91-year-old Pennsylvania woman has lost her home—and all of its worth—over a small tax debt. But the case just outside of Philadelphia is a particularly vivid illustration of a predatory and gruesome practice that the Supreme Court broadly ruled unconstitutional in 2023.

In 2020, Gloria Gaynor (not the disco queen) skipped her annual trip to the tax office during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to Jackie Davis, her daughter, to the local ABC affiliate for its excellent report on the story. Gaynor's faculties noticeably declined around then, according to Davis. Even still, the Upper Darby resident returned in 2021 to pay her property taxes, her attorney said, under the impression that the pause in enforcement meant the government would apply her money toward the previous year. Instead, it went to 2021, and her debt from 2020 remained intact.

As these things go, it continued to grow. Her $3,500 bill ultimately reached $14,419 with penalties, interest, and fees. The government sold that debt to a real estate firm, the CJD Group, which then acquired the deed to the home.

The rub is that the home is worth more than 17 times that. Yet Gaynor—who had nearly paid off the mortgage—will not see a penny in equity, despite the fact that she owed the government $232,000 less than what the home is ultimately worth.

Regular news real-time readers may be familiar with Tyler v. Hennepin County , the 2023 Supreme Court case that ruled home equity theft is illegal. The plaintiff, 94-year-old Geraldine Tyler, fell behind on her property taxes after some disturbing neighborhood incidents prompted her move from her Minneapolis condominium to a retirement home. She then had difficulty paying both her rent and her property taxes. Therefore, the local government seized the condo, sold it for $40,000, and kept the $25,000 in excess of her tax debt, which included steep penalties, interest, and fees.

"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," wrote Chief Justice John Roberts. "The taxpayer must render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, but no more."

It was a good decision. But Gaynor's plight highlights one way governments are getting around it: by selling properties for the value of the debt—instead of putting them on the market or selling them at auction—so that there is no excess equity to speak of.

That doesn't mean, of course, that the equity doesn't exist. It does. It is just now in the hands of a private company, as opposed to the elderly woman who spent the last 25 or so years paying off the mortgage, and nearly finishing.

Gaynor is not even close to being alone here—CJD Group, according to 6abc Philadelphia, has acquired 62 deeds from Delaware County tax sales since 2011 (and it is not the only company doing so).

The issue is also not limited to Pennsylvania. For example, a woman from Michigan, Tawanda Hall, owed the government $22,642 in taxes (including penalties, interest, and fees). Oakland County responded by selling her home for the value of her debt to the city of Southfield, which transferred the deed to the Southfield Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative. That city-managed nonprofit then enriched itself when it sold the home for $308,000 and kept the profit. In July, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled That workaround is unconstitutional.

Gaynor, for her part, has had no such luck. The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania ruled in January that the price at which the home was sold was not "grossly inadequate compared to the actual sale price." The case has, however, drawn the attention of state Rep. Gina Curry (D–Upper Darby), who told the local ABC affiliate that she hopes will make these stories a thing of the past.

She and other interested legislators may possibly look to Oregon, which recently passed a law requiring, among other things, that the government enlist a real estate agent to sell off foreclosed properties, helping ensure that a $247,000 home is not sold for, say, about 94 percent less than its value.

The post 91-Year-Old Pennsylvania Woman With Dementia Loses $247,000 Home Over a $14,000 Tax Debt appeared first on newsrealtime .

Read More

Student loans face major changes under Trump's law

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) , signed into law by President Donald Trump on July 4, 2025, is being hailed as a transformative piece of fiscal legislation. This act seeks to make permanent many of the tax cuts introduced in the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, while also introducing new deductions and reducing federal spending. However, critics have raised concerns about the potential for a significant increase in the national debt, projected to rise by $3.4 to $5.0 trillion over the next decade.

One of the most notable changes introduced by the OBBBA is the elimination of unlimited borrowing for graduate students, effective July 1, 2026. The act removes subsidized loans for graduate students and Direct PLUS Loans for graduate or professional students. New borrowing limits have been set, with master's students capped at $20,500 annually and $100,000 lifetime, and professional degrees capped at $50,000 annually and $200,000 lifetime.

The OBBBA also introduces a total lifetime borrowing cap of $257,500 for all federal student loans. This measure is aimed at curbing excessive debt among students pursuing advanced degrees. While proponents argue that these changes will help manage debt more effectively, critics warn that they may deter enrollment in advanced degrees, particularly for low-income students who lack access to federal or institutional aid.

In addition to changes in borrowing limits, the OBBBA consolidates federal student loan repayment plans into two options for new borrowers starting July 1, 2026. Borrowers can choose between a standard plan with fixed payments and a Repayment Assistance Plan (RAP) based on income. RAP payments range from 1% to 10% of adjusted gross income, with a minimum monthly payment of $10, and the repayment term extends to 30 years.

Experts express concern that the new loan limits and repayment plans may lead to an increase in defaults. The required minimum payment and increased payments for low-income borrowers could result in financial strain, leading to higher default rates. Additionally, confusion and anxiety among borrowers are rising due to changes and delays in processing income-based repayment plan applications.

Refinancing federal loans with private lenders is another consideration for borrowers, as it results in the loss of federal benefits such as access to loan forgiveness programs, income-based repayment plans, and interest-free deferments. Borrowers must carefully weigh the benefits and drawbacks of refinancing, considering the long-term implications on their financial health.

Supporters of the OBBBA, including the Trump administration and conservatives, argue that these changes represent a strategic and compassionate approach to addressing the student loan crisis. They emphasize the importance of borrowers fulfilling their repayment agreements, especially after extended payment pauses, and view the simplification of the loan program as a way to better position borrowers to manage their debts effectively.

While the OBBBA introduces significant changes to federal student loans, impacting borrowing limits and repayment plans, it remains a topic of debate. Proponents argue for the benefits of simplification and debt management, while critics highlight potential negative impacts on access to advanced education and increased defaults. Understanding these changes is crucial for students and families navigating the evolving landscape of higher education financing.

Read More