Post-Tyler Surplus Compliance by Jurisdiction
Legal information, not legal advice. This is a comparative reference compiled from the wiki’s 56 jurisdiction pages; every cell traces to a cited primary source on the linked page. Verify against those sources before acting. Last verified: 2026-06-02.
Overview
In tyler-v-hennepin-county (598 U.S. 631 (2023)) the Supreme Court held that a government’s retention of surplus equity beyond the tax debt is an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth Amendment. This table aggregates, for each of the 56 US jurisdictions, two fields already researched on that jurisdiction’s page: the Module 0 Tyler-compliance classification (compliant / reformed_post_Tyler / non_compliant / unclear) and the Module 3 “belongs to” answer — i.e., who is statutorily entitled to tax-sale surplus once the taxing authority’s debt, interest, and costs are satisfied.
The classifications are not uniform. A large group of jurisdictions were already
compliant before Tyler because their statutes (or common law) returned surplus to
the former owner; a second large group amended their statutes after the 2023
decision (reformed_post_Tyler); a handful retain non-compliant or only partially
reformed mechanisms on at least one foreclosure track; and several remain unclear
pending litigation or legislation. Because Tyler concerns government retention of
equity after a property-tax foreclosure, jurisdictions with no property-tax
foreclosure regime (the CNMI; effectively American Samoa) sit outside the
fact-pattern entirely.
Two structural caveats recur across the table and should be read into every “former owner” cell. First, many “compliant” schemes still escheat unclaimed surplus to a county fund, school fund, or unclaimed-property division after a dormancy period (e.g., Arkansas, Pennsylvania, Missouri, South Carolina, West Virginia, Virginia) — whether that terminal forfeiture itself survives Tyler is, in several states, an open question flagged on the source page. Second, some jurisdictions have multiple tracks (a private tax-deed track and a judicial-foreclosure track, or a residential-vs-other-class split) that reach opposite results; those are noted in the table cell and detailed on the linked page.
Comparative table
| Jurisdiction | Tyler compliance | Surplus belongs to | Citation (per linked page) |
|---|---|---|---|
| alabama | unclear / mixed | Former owner, conditioned on redemption in the sale-of-land system; the Article 7 lien system generates no surplus | Ala. Code § 40-10-28 |
| alaska | reformed_post_Tyler / compliant-by-design (residual gap) | Former record owner — but only for property the municipality sells within 10 years and never dedicated to public use; retained-for-public-use property yields no surplus | AS 29.45.480(b) |
| arizona | reformed_post_Tyler | Former property owner (priority waterfall for lienholders), via the § 42-18204 excess-proceeds sale | A.R.S. § 42-18204 |
| arkansas | reformed_post_Tyler / largely compliant | Former owner (record titleholder at COSL sale; excludes remote heirs) after a governmental priority waterfall; unclaimed surplus escheats to county after 2 years (open Tyler tension) | Ark. Code § 26-37-205 |
| california | compliant | Priority waterfall ending with the former owner; county does not keep the surplus | RTC §§ 4674, 4675 |
| colorado | reformed_post_Tyler | Priority waterfall — junior lienors first, then former owner; overbid at public auction under HB24-1056 (eff. July 1, 2024) | C.R.S. Art. 11.5 (HB24-1056) |
| connecticut | compliant | Former owner and lienholders by priority waterfall; § 12-157 surplus escrowed and returned | Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-157(i) |
| delaware | compliant (by existing structure) | Former owner (after sheriff-sale distribution waterfall) | Del. sheriff-sale distribution statute (per page) |
| florida | compliant | Priority waterfall, residual to the former owner; owner exempt from the 120-day claim bar | Fla. Stat. § 197.582 |
| georgia | compliant | Former owner + lienholders by priority waterfall; state does not retain surplus | O.C.G.A. § 48-4-5 |
| hawaii | compliant | Priority waterfall, then the former owner (“person entitled”) | HRS 667-31(b); repealed HRS 246-63 / ROH § 8-5.9 |
| idaho | compliant (reformed pre-Tyler) | Priority waterfall then former owner; unclaimed remainder to State Treasurer as unclaimed property | Idaho Code § 31-808 (2016 SB 1347a) |
| illinois | non_compliant → reformed_post_Tyler (in transition) | Pre-reform: tax buyer captured the surplus equity (owner got nothing absent indemnity-fund claim); HB4537 (passed May 2026, awaiting signature) creates a surplus mechanism | bell-v-pappas-2025; HB4537 |
| indiana | compliant | Former owner (“owner of record … divested by issuance of a tax deed”), or certificate purchaser on redemption | IC 6-1.1-24-7 |
| iowa | non_compliant (challenged, unresolved) | No surplus exists by design — buyer pays only the amount due and takes the whole parcel; owner equity forfeited to deed holder | Iowa Code ch. 446, 448 (no surplus provision) |
| kansas | compliant | Former owner / party entitled thereto after the tax sale | K.S.A. 79-2803 |
| kentucky | compliant | Priority waterfall, then the former owner (defendant) | KRS 426.500(2), 426.530 |
| louisiana | reformed_post_Tyler | Priority waterfall, with the former owner taking the residue (2026 reform: interest-rate bid-down lien + judicial sheriff’s sale) | 2026 LA tax-sale reform (per page) |
| maine | reformed_post_Tyler | Former owner (where municipality sells; § 943-C broker-sale surplus) | Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 36, § 943-C |
| maryland | reformed_post_Tyler / transitional | Former owner (“person entitled to the balance”); collector holds balance over the tax debt | Md. Tax-Prop. § 14-818 |
| massachusetts | reformed_post_Tyler | Former owner (post-reform); pre-reform municipality kept equity | St. 2024, c. 140 |
| michigan | reformed_post_Tyler (and pre-Tyler) | Former owner / priority waterfall (per Rafaeli); “remaining proceeds” claim | MCL 211.78t; rafaeli-v-oakland-county-2020 |
| minnesota | reformed_post_Tyler | Interested parties (former owner + interest holders) — surplus above minimum bid | Minn. Stat. 282.005 (2024) |
| mississippi | compliant (one open question) | Former owner (record owner at the tax sale); overbid held in escrow, paid to owner on request if not redeemed. Open: parcels struck off to the State carry no surplus-remittance — ⚠ needs_verification | Miss. Code § 27-41-77 |
| missouri | reformed_post_Tyler / compliant on its face (unclear at escheat tail) | Priority waterfall, then the former owner; unclaimed surplus escheats to county school fund after 3 years (Ch. 141 routes to taxing authorities) — Tyler-vulnerable tail | RSMo 140.230; RSMo 141.580 |
| montana | reformed_post_Tyler / effectively compliant | Legal titleholder of record (former owner) | Mont. surplus statute (per page) |
| nebraska | reformed_post_Tyler | Former owner (post-LB 727): treasurer’s-deed track grantee pays surplus to prior owner within 30 days; judicial-foreclosure track distributes excess via court. Owner’s outer claim period ⚠ needs_verification | Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 77-1837, 77-1838 |
| nevada | compliant | Priority waterfall → former owner/assessee; excess held and paid on claim within 1 year | NRS 361.610 |
| new-hampshire | compliant / reformed pre-Tyler | Former owner(s) and record lienholders by priority | RSA 80:90; Polonsky v. Town of Bedford (2020) |
| new-jersey | reformed_post_Tyler | Former owner / heirs (post-reform); pre-2024 TSC holder kept everything (Roberto, 2025) | P.L. 2024, c.39 (N.J.S.A. 54:5-98.1, 98.2) |
| new-mexico | compliant | Former owner — PTD applies surplus to owner | NMSA § 7-38-71 |
| new-york | reformed_post_Tyler | Priority waterfall (post-reform); surplus determination & claim process | RPTL §§ 1196–1197 (L.2024, ch.55, pt.BB) |
| north-carolina | compliant | Priority waterfall, then the former owner (subject to junior lienholders) | N.C.G.S. § 105-374(q) |
| north-dakota | compliant | Former owner of record (and other claimants), not the county | NDCC 57-28-20(3) |
| ohio | reformed_post_Tyler / unclear | Former owner (residue after tax debt and costs) via priority waterfall on the foreclosure-sale path; the direct-transfer-to-land-bank path raised takings concerns — ⚠ needs_verification (full legislative reconciliation still settling) | R.C. 5721.20; R.C. 323.78; harrison-v-montgomery-county |
| oklahoma | compliant | Record owner (as of resale start date); funds held in separate county fund, withdrawable 1 year | 68 O.S. § 3131(D) |
| oregon | reformed_post_Tyler | Former owner (owner as of the date the property was taken) | Or. HB 2089 (per page) |
| pennsylvania | compliant (with a flagged risk) | Priority waterfall ending with the former owner ((d)(5)). Risk: § 205(f) distributes unclaimed balance to taxing districts after 3 years — survival under Tyler unresolved | 72 P.S. § 5860.205(d), (f) |
| rhode-island | unclear / needs reconciliation | Former owner, but only in a narrow case (per page); otherwise unresolved | R.I. tax-sale statute (per page) |
| south-carolina | compliant | Former owner (priority waterfall first); “any remaining overage belongs to the owner of record immediately before the end of the redemption period.” 5-year escheat of unclaimed overage to county | S.C. Code § 12-51-130 |
| south-dakota | reformed_post_Tyler / compliant | Prior owner of record (post-HB 1090); 180-day window then Unclaimed Property | SDCL 10-25-39, 39.1, 39.2 (HB 1090, 2024) |
| tennessee | compliant | Priority waterfall ending with the former owner; never retained by the county; residue to unclaimed property | Tenn. Code § 67-5-2702 |
| texas | compliant | Priority waterfall, with any remainder to the former owner | Tex. Tax Code §§ 34.03, 34.04 |
| utah | compliant | Unclaimed property → former owner (“any sale… “) | Utah Code § 59-2-1351.1(7) |
| vermont | compliant (common-law); reform in progress | Former owner — municipality acts as fiduciary; surplus on resale belongs to the taxpayer (Bogie v. Town of Barnet, 1970) | Bogie v. Town of Barnet, 128 Vt. 280 (1970) |
| virginia | reformed_post_Tyler / largely compliant | Former owner (and heirs/successors) plus lienors; 2-year escheat-to-locality struck as applied | Va. Code § 58.1-3967; mckeithen-v-city-of-richmond-2023 |
| washington | compliant | Former record owner (person holding title on the operative date) | RCW 84.64.080(10) |
| west-virginia | reformed_post_Tyler | Former owner (“his heirs or assigns”); claim in circuit court within 2 years; unclaimed surplus to general school fund | W. Va. Code § 11A-3-65 |
| wisconsin | reformed_post_Tyler (reformed just before Tyler) | Former owner, after a statutory deduction waterfall; county pays net resale surplus | Wis. Stat. 75.36 (2021 Act 216; 2023 Act 207) |
| wyoming | non_compliant (private tax-deed track) / partial | Not applicable on the private tax-deed track — whole property conveyed by tax deed with no surplus to the former owner. Surplus is returned on the distraint and county-judicial-foreclosure paths | Wyo. Stat. § 39-13-108 |
| district-of-columbia | reformed_post_Tyler (partial) | Split regime. Owner-occupied Class 1A/1B residential (≤5 units): former owner gets surplus equity via court-ordered resale (§ 47-1382.01). Other classes: purchaser/District can still capture equity above the debt | D.C. Code §§ 47-1382, 47-1382.01 |
| puerto-rico | compliant | Former owner (or heirs/assignees) | P.R. tax-sale statute (per page) |
| guam | compliant | Former owner (owner of record immediately prior to tax deed) | 11 GCA § 24810 |
| us-virgin-islands | compliant on its face | Former owner — “any remaining funds … are to be paid to the taxpayer” | 33 V.I.C. § 2547 |
| northern-mariana-islands | not applicable | Judgment debtor / mortgagor — no property-tax foreclosure exists; mortgage surplus brought to court “for the use of the defendant” | 2 CMC § 4537(g) |
| american-samoa | compliant | Former owner — on public foreclosure sale, remainder paid to the owner of the mortgaged property; no tax-sale equity-forfeiture regime exists | A.S.C.A. § 37.1109 |
Notable clusters / outliers
Pre-existing compliant cluster. A substantial number of jurisdictions (California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, North Carolina, Texas, Nevada, New Mexico, and others) already returned surplus to the former owner before 2023 and required no statutory overhaul. Several reached Tyler’s result years early through state-court takings doctrine — New Hampshire (Polonsky, 2020), Michigan (Rafaeli, 2020), and Vermont (Bogie, 1970) are the clearest examples.
Post-Tyler reform cluster. The largest single bloc of statutory activity is the
reformed_post_Tyler group — Colorado (HB24-1056), Massachusetts (St. 2024, c.140),
Minnesota (282.005), Nebraska (LB 727), New Jersey (P.L. 2024, c.39), New York
(RPTL 1196–1197), South Dakota (HB 1090), Oregon (HB 2089), and Louisiana’s 2026
overhaul. These states previously permitted equity forfeiture and added a
surplus-return mechanism in direct response to the decision.
Non-compliant / partial outliers. Iowa remains the cleanest non-compliant case: its scheme generates no surplus at all because the buyer pays only the amount due and takes the whole parcel — the exact harm in Tyler — and reform bill SF 2313 (2026) did not pass. Wyoming is non-compliant only on the private tax-deed track (surplus is returned on its other paths). Illinois is mid-transition: a federal court held its model unconstitutional (Bell v. Pappas, 2025) and a reform bill awaits signature.
Escheat-tail and split-regime caveats. Even among “compliant” states, terminal forfeiture of unclaimed surplus to a government fund (Arkansas, Pennsylvania §205(f), Missouri, South Carolina, West Virginia, Virginia) is an unresolved Tyler question flagged on several pages. The District of Columbia and Wyoming have explicit split regimes where the outcome turns on property class or foreclosure track, and Mississippi’s struck-off-to-State path lacks a surplus-remittance mechanism (carried here as ⚠ needs_verification per the source page).
▸ For Investors / Operators — Compliance status is a direct proxy for surplus deal flow and litigation risk.
reformed_post_Tylerandnon_compliantjurisdictions are where surplus-recovery volume and unsettled case law concentrate; the split-track states (Wyoming private deed, DC by class, Mississippi struck-off) reward reading the specific track before committing capital. Confirm the redemption path, escheat dormancy period, and whether the “belongs to” waterfall puts junior lienholders ahead of the residual owner on each linked page.▸ For Former Owners — If a tax sale produced more than the taxes, interest, and costs, the residual surplus in the large majority of jurisdictions belongs to the former owner (or heirs) — subject to claim deadlines and, in many states, an escheat dormancy clock after which unclaimed funds route to a government or unclaimed-property fund. The exact claim venue, deadline, and form are on each linked jurisdiction page.
Sources
Per-cell classifications and “belongs to” answers are compiled from each linked
jurisdiction page’s Module 0 (Identity & Classification — Tyler compliance) and
Module 3 (Surplus / Excess Proceeds — belongs to). The statute and case citations
shown in the right-hand column are the controlling authorities cited and retrieved on
those pages; follow the wiki-link for the full primary-source URL, the surrounding
analysis, and any retrieval dates. The landmark anchor for the entire table is
tyler-v-hennepin-county (598 U.S. 631 (2023)). Cells marked ⚠ needs_verification
carry that flag forward from the source page (Mississippi struck-off path; Ohio
land-bank reconciliation; Nebraska owner outer-claim period) and were not independently
re-verified for this table.
Disclaimer. This page provides legal information, not legal advice. Tax and foreclosure law changes frequently and varies by jurisdiction and fact pattern. Nothing here creates an attorney-client relationship. Verify every classification and citation against the linked jurisdiction page and its underlying primary sources before relying on it. Last verified: 2026-06-02.