Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur, adipisicing elit. Soluta dolorem consequuntur corporis pariatur rem aliquam similique animi fugiat iure explicabo eius omnis minima labore natus, repellat aut odio fuga vero. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur, adipisicing elit. Soluta dolorem consequuntur corporis pariatur rem aliquam similique animi fugiat iure explicabo eius omnis minima labore natus, repellat aut odio fuga vero.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur, adipisicing elit. Soluta dolorem consequuntur corporis pariatur remaliquam similique animi fugiat iure explicabo eius omnis minima labore natus, repellat aut odio fuga vero.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur, adipisicing elit. Soluta dolorem consequuntur corporis pariatur remaliquam similique animi fugiat iure explicabo eius omnis minima labore natus, repellat aut odio fuga vero. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur, adipisicing elit. Soluta dolorem consequuntur corporis pariatur remaliquam similique animi fugiat iure explicabo eius omnis minima labore natus, repellat aut odio fuga vero.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur, adipisicing elit. Soluta dolorem consequuntur corporis pariatur remaliquam similique animi fugiat iure explicabo eius omnis minima labore natus, repellat aut odio fuga vero. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur, adipisicing elit. Soluta dolorem consequuntur corporis pariatur remaliquam similique animi fugiat iure explicabo eius omnis minima labore natus, repellat aut odio fuga vero.
ABI MEMBERS ONLYABI Membership is required to access the full summary. please log in using your ABI Member credentials.
Not a Member yet? Try Us Out!
Sign up to receive Rochelle's Daily Wire and try out our membership for 30 days. When you do — you'll see why our members "Think ABI First."
Learn More
Bill
Bill
This is an interesting decision but left me scratching my head a bit. In the BFP v. Resolution Trust Supreme Court case of many years ago, the Supreme Court held in a fraudulent conveyance context that reasonably equivalent value was conclusively presumed in a validly conducted foreclosure sale held in accordance with applicable law. Here (if I'm understanding the decision) the Supreme Court is stating that even if there is a validly conducted tax foreclosure which presumably cannot under BFP be a fraudulent transfer, the tax sale can still be avoidable in a bankruptcy because it violates the Taking Clause. Seems inconsistent to me. What am I missing? Are we doomed to go back to the 75% rule in Durrett again? How does a buyer in a tax foreclosure sale get title insurance (again, harkening back to the Durrett days)?