Board of supervisors votes not to refund surplus from property sale

0
13

BY JANET BERNOSKY, Eastern Shore Post —

The Accomack County Board of Supervisors unanimously voted at the Wednesday, Jan. 15, monthly meeting to deny a man’s request for a refund of surplus funds from a delinquent tax sale of his property.

County officials said he requested the surplus after the date to claim the funds had passed. 

In November 2019, Archie Rantz’s property, a two-acre vacant lot located at 6203 Bullbeggar Road in Oak Hall, was sold at public auction.  

The proceeds were used to pay delinquent county real estate taxes in the amount of $1,665.09, covering the years from 2012-2019.

The following month, the Accomack County Circuit Court ordered the $3,137 in surplus funds from the sale to be held by the clerk of the court, in accordance with the Virginia Code. 

County Administrator Mike Mason said that after two years, the state code also specifies that unclaimed surplus funds from tax sales are then remitted to the county treasurer.

In May 2022, Rantz’s unclaimed surplus funds, less a small percentage in attorney’s fees — a total of $2,823.85 — was handed over to the county treasurer. 

In a letter received by Mason on Dec. 17, 2024, Rantz said he received the property as a wedding gift from his grandmother, Violet B. Linton.

At some point, a deal to place a double-wide mobile home on the property fell through when the bank discovered a lien on the property.

Rantz said he had also tried to sell the property. 

An online search showed the property was listed in 2016 for $50,000.  The 2024 tax-assessed value of the property was $22,900.

Rantz’s letter stated that he attempted to make contact with the clerk’s office in 2021, 2022, and 2023.  Additionally, he said he connected with Treasurer James Lilliston and the law firm conducting the back-tax sale about the matter.

Lilliston said at the meeting that the treasurer’s office is under no obligation to reach out and inform former owners of any excess funds.

“It’s all I have left from my grandmother and it will go a long way for us if we could have it,” Rantz said in the letter about the refund request.  

Rantz shared that he and his wife are disabled and live on a limited income in a rental.

Mason advised the supervisors it could still decide to issue the refund, subject to the creation of an ordinance followed by a public hearing.

However, while stating that he didn’t want anyone to think he was unsympathetic, Mason recommended that the supervisors deny Rantz’s  request.  

According to Mason, an approval would essentially create a huge financial liability for the county by setting the precedent for former owners, their heirs, or beneficiaries to expect similar treatment at any point in time.

Rantz attended the meeting but did not address the supervisors. He left immediately after the vote.

“I’ve never had a situation like this come up in all the years I’ve been affiliated with the county,” Mason said.

Previous articleChallenge to zoning decision fails
Next articleDavid Williams