Christine Searle is a 70-year-old resident of Gilbert, Arizona. She has owned her home for 18 years now, and by all accounts, it is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. But unbeknownst to her, she was partially overdue on her taxes, and owed around $1,600 in back taxes.
In order to force compliance, Arizona law allows the government to sell the power to foreclose on a home. The Maricopa County treasurer did just that. Now, Ms. Searle stands to lose not just her home, but the equity that she had built up in the house.
This is the result of a law that should have been fixed years ago, but Arizona’s attorney general has failed to protect the constitutional rights of the state’s citizens. Mountain States Legal Foundation has come to Ms. Searle’s aide to defend her against a gross violation of economic liberty.
Case Summary
Ms. Searle bought her home in 2005. She has been the sole owner and has enjoyed the benefits of home ownership. While the government appraised her house at $376,800, it is actually worth much more. Some online real estate search engines appraise it for as much $505,000!
After Ms. Searle fell behind on property taxes for the years 2015 and 2016, Maricopa County put a lien on her house and then auctioned off the lien. At the time of the foreclosure, Ms. Searle owed just $1,607.68 in back taxes. This action, sanctioned by Arizona law, led to a default judgment and the eventual transfer of her home’s title to a private company. Now, on top of losing her home and all its equity, Ms. Searle is threatened with the loss of her home.
The Constitution and the Supreme Court
Ms. Searle is not the first unsuspecting citizen to be evicted like this. Arizona’s home equity seizure law has been on the books since 1997. However, as the Supreme Court made clear in 2023, the government just can’t go about doing it this way.
The Constitution of the United States protects private property. It does not allow the government to obtain someone’s home or other property for public use without just compensation, and never for the mere private use of another. Even in cases where eminent domain is used—for public purposes such as highways—the government still must provide a property owner with just compensation.
In 2023, as a part of that constitutional protection, the Supreme Court ruled the government cannot sell a person’s home to cover a debt, and then keep the extra money from the sale of the house. In Arizona, the system is essentially the same—except that instead of the government keeping the extra funds, it’s the purchaser of the tax lien.
Our nation’s legal history at the Supreme Court is chalk-full of reasons why such a monstrous system is impermissible.
- “It is against all reason and justice for a people to entrust a legislature” with the power to enact a law that takes property from A and gives it to B.” Calder v. Bull, 1798
- “The principle that a man’s home is his castle is basic to our system of jurisprudence.” Lombard v. Louisiana, 1963
- “The taxpayer must render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, but no more.” Tyler v. Hennepin Count., Minnesota, 2023.
When the Supreme Court in 2023 declared that the government can’t take a citizen’s private property in this context, the Arizona attorney general should have immediately suspended enforcement of Arizona’s law until it could be properly addressed by the courts and the state legislature. Instead, Ms. Searle has lost her home because of government negligence.
Join the Fight
Since 1977, MSLF has fought to protect private property rights, individual liberties, and economic freedom. MSLF is a nonprofit public interest legal foundation. We represent clients pro bono and receive no government funding. Make your 100% tax deductible contribution today and join the fight.
What’s at Stake
Americans have the right to private property. The government can never confiscate one person’s property in order to give it to another. Even when the government can legally take private property, it must provide just compensation. Here, Ms. Searle is literally on the verge of losing hundreds of thousands of dollars, and her home. That is absurd!
Mountain States has stepped into the case to protect all Americans’ right to private property, and to extend the precedents that have been set to date. We won’t rest until the Constitution is fully protected and enforced.
We are representing Ms. Searle in her suit based on federal and state law. We are suing the Arizona attorney general and other entities who may control the foreclosure power on Ms. Searle’s property. We seek a complete invalidation of the transfer of her property, damages, and a return to constitutional sensibility.
Case Timeline
- 2015: Tax lien applied
- August 2021: Foreclosure process initiated by private company.
- January 2024: Ms. Searle was notified that eviction proceedings would soon begin.
- January 2024: Mountain States filed a complaint in federal District Court of Arizona on behalf of Ms. Searle, and filed a motion for an injunction to stop the eviction of Ms. Searle.
- July 2024: District Court granted the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.
- August 2024: Mountain States filed a notice of appeal in the Ninth Circuit to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.
- April 2025: Mountain States Legal Foundation presented oral argument before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
- June 2025: Following an abrupt eviction threat from the private defendants, MSLF filed an emergency motion to protect Christine Searle’s possession of her home while her case is on appeal.
- July 2025: The U.S. District Court granted a temporary, 21-day restraining order to halt the eviction and directed MSLF to seek a longer-term injunction directly from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where the case is now pending.
- July 16, 2025: Unfortunately, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the Motion for Injunction. As a result, the eviction process has begun.
- August 28, 2025: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals gave us a crucial partial victory. The judges explained that while Christine cannot undo the state’s foreclosure judgment itself, Rooker-Feldman does not bar her claims seeking the return of the excess value of her home.
- Christine’s claims return to the district court, where we’ll press ahead to hold the system accountable and work to protect homeowners across Arizona and beyond from this unconstitutional practice.
