[25-95] Pung v. Isabella County

5 snips

Feb 25, 2026

Guest

Matthew T. Nelson

Philip L. Ellison, appellate counsel arguing fair market value should set just compensation. Matthew T. Nelson, county counsel defending tax-foreclosure procedures and surplus-as-forced-sale value. Frederick Liu, U.S. attorney urging historically fair tax sales mean surplus can count as compensation. They debate when auctions are fair, historical guideposts for sales, valuation timing, and remedies after foreclosure.

Ask episode

AI Snips

Chapters

Transcript

Episode notes

INSIGHT

Just Compensation Begins With Fair Market Value

The Fifth Amendment's just compensation starts with the property's fair market value at the time of the taking.
Philip L. Ellison argued the county's retention of equity violated that rule because the home was worth $194,400 versus a $2,241.93 debt and a $76,008 auction price.

ADVICE

Challenge Depressed Auction Prices With Market Evidence

Challenge auction outcomes with evidence when an auction likely depressed value below fair market value.
Ellison suggested courts can consider appraisals and other market evidence to show an auction result did not reflect true market value.

INSIGHT

Auctions Are Evidence Not The Final Word

Auctions can be one piece of evidence but are not dispositive of just compensation.
Ellison said even a fair auction might not reach fair market value and former owners should be allowed to present contrary valuation evidence.

Get the Snipd Podcast app to discover more snips from this episode

Get the app

Pung v. Isabella County

Justia · Docket · oyez.org

Argued on Feb 25, 2026.

Petitioner: Michael Pung, Personal Representative of the Estate of Timothy Scott Pung.
Respondent: sabella County, Michigan.

Advocates:

Philip L. Ellison (for the Petitioner)
Frederick Liu (for the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting neither party)
Matthew T. Nelson (for the Respondent)

Facts of the case (from oyez.org)

This case involves a dispute over the foreclosure and sale of the Pung property in Isabella County, Michigan, following the death of its owner, Timothy Scott Pung, in 2004. The property had a Principal Residence Exemption (PRE) from local school taxes. In 2010, the township tax assessor, Patricia DePriest, retroactively denied the PRE for the years 2007-2009, asserting a new owner must file an affidavit. Although the Michigan Tax Tribunal overturned this decision in 2012, holding the PRE remained valid for the estate, DePriest subsequently revoked the PRE for the 2012 tax year based on the same unfiled-affidavit rationale. This denial created an unpaid tax bill of $2,241.93. The County Treasurer, Steven Pickens, initiated foreclosure proceedings for this delinquency. After a final judgment of foreclosure, the property sold at a public auction for $76,008. Isabella County and Pickens retained the entire $76,008 from the sale, refusing to return the surplus proceeds above the tax debt to Michael Pung, the estate's representative. Michael Pung sued, alleging this retention of the surplus violated the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause and the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause.

The district court granted Pung summary judgment on the Takings Clause claim, ruling he was entitled to the surplus proceeds (the sale price minus the tax debt), but not to the greater loss in equity based on the property’s fair market value. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment on all claims, including the amount of compensation awarded.

Question

1. When the government takes property for tax debt, does the Fifth Amendment require compensation based on the property’s true fair market value, or only on the lower amount it sold for at a tax foreclosure auction?

2. Does the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause prohibit the government from seizing and keeping a property worth far more than the small tax debt owed on it?