Gary and Jay Solnit invested in a piece of property in Paragould in 2016 with a Dollar General on it. They estimated the land was worth about $1.5 million.
The state of Arkansas seized the property for unpaid taxes and sold it six years later for about $27,000.
Now, the Solnits want the U.S. Supreme Court to allow them to sue the Arkansas Commissioner of Public Lands to recoup their lost investment.
The brothers, who live in California, are challenging an Arkansas Supreme Court ruling allowing the seizure and sale to stand. The state’s high court concluded the Solnits had no recourse in court because the state can’t be sued under the doctrine of sovereign immunity.
“That just seems like a big problem,” said Aaron Newell, an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation, which represents the Solnits. “That seems like a problem that needs to be fixed.”
Alexis Reaves, a spokeswoman for the commissioner’s office, said because the case is pending, the office would not comment.
At issue is whether a state’s sovereign immunity, which legally bars suing the state under most circumstances, outweighs the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which requires “just compensation” for any property taken for public use. What makes the case unusual, Newell said, is the state is the entity that foreclosed on and seized the property. If a county or a private company had grabbed the land, they could be sued because sovereign immunity wouldn’t apply, he said.
Should the U.S. Supreme Court take the case, a ruling would impact sovereign immunity laws around the country, Newell said.
“This could really give people their day in court,” Newell said. “It would allow cases to be heard on the merits.”
The case started with an unpaid tax debt of about $10,000, two mailed notices that never reached the Solnits and an eventual sale of the property.
The Solnits missed their property tax payments on the land in 2017 and 2018. It is unclear who assessed the property value at $1.5 million.
That triggered a notice being sent to the registered address for the company listed as the owner of the property, BAS LLC, in Tarzana, Calif., where Gary Solnit lived for a time. The company operated from a separate address in Beverly Hills, Calif.
Gary Solnit asked the title company for the Arkansas property to change the address, but that change never came to pass. BAS also didn’t register a mailing address with the county, a requirement under Arkansas law. The two mailed notices never reached the company or the Solnits.
After not paying property taxes for two years, the Greene County Clerk certified the property to the Arkansas State Lands Commissioner for nonpayment.
The commissioner’s office sent a certified letter to the company at the address in Tarzana, Calif., the owner’s last known address. Using postal service tracking data, the commissioner’s office noted the letter had been delivered Aug. 24, 2021.
A second certified letter was sent in June 2022 to the property address in Paragould. That letter was returned as undelivered.
“The brothers never knew their property was being foreclosed on until it was foreclosed on,” Newell said. “You’d think you could have some recourse, not just to have your $1.5 million property foreclosed for a $10,000 tax debt.”
The two men sued in state court but ultimately lost at the Arkansas Supreme Court, where the state argued that it fulfilled its constitutional and legal duties to notify BAS LLC and the Solnits about the debt and foreclosure.
A divided Arkansas Supreme Court ruled in June 2025 that the Land Commissioner’s office fulfilled the legal duty to notify the Solnits and BAS LLC of the seizure and pending sale of the property, satisfying the constitutional requirement of due process.
“The undisputed record here demonstrates that the Commissioner provided constitutionally sufficient notice before it proceeded with the challenged tax sale,” Arkansas Associate Justice Nicholas Bronni wrote for the court.
Associate Justice Shawn A. Womack, in a dissent, said the case is an example of “how messy” the state’s laws on sovereign immunity are.
“Because the right to property is before and higher than any constitutional sanction, sovereign immunity, a constitutional sanction, cannot be an obstacle to a claim of this right,” Womack wrote.
As of Friday, the high court had not said it would take the case. If the case is taken up, Newell’s best estimate is it would be heard in the fall.
“There’s really no set timeline,” Newell said.
