Property owners harmed by a loss of equity after tax forfeitures are set to share in a proposed $109 million settlement that Gov. Tim Walz and DFL leaders agreed to after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

The settlement came out of negotiations over two lawsuits and will affect some 6,000 Minnesotans. Walz and DFL leaders agreed on Friday to include the payment in the supplemental budget this year, making it the largest line-item unrelated to the bonding bill.

"In our budget, we're going to make sure that we're fulfilling our obligation," said Senate Majority Leader Erin Murphy, DFL-St. Paul.

The agreement follows a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last May in favor of a Minneapolis woman. The court agreed that Hennepin County, following Minnesota law, unconstitutionally seized the property of Geraldine Tyler, now 95 years old.

Tyler had purchased a condo in 1999, but when her family moved her into a senior living community in 2010, the property taxes on her home went unpaid. The tax bill grew from $2,300 in 2015 to $15,000 with interest and penalties. The county seized her condo, sold it for $40,000, erased the debt and, in accordance with state law, split the profits among the county, city and local school district.

The Supreme Court ruled 9 to 0 that Hennepin County violated a constitutional clause requiring the government to give owners "just compensation" when seizing their property. The two lawsuits on behalf of property owners followed the ruling.

The proposed deal, negotiated by Attorney General Keith Ellison's office, would settle the claims in those lawsuits.

Sen. Warren Limmer, R-Maple Grove, agreed that the settlement appeared to be fair. "It's not going to satisfy every single property owner equally, but at the same time, it does bring an element of justice to the property owners that, in some cases through no fault of their own, couldn't make the property tax payments," he said.

Limmer said it's not just his opinion that it's the right thing to do, but that of the U.S. Supreme Court. "Minnesota has been playing this game since 1935 and it's really been an unfair element for taxpayers across the state," Limmer said.

Limmer said he will vote for the settlement unless it's part of a broader bill with spending that he doesn't support. Limmer, however, said the state also should codify the court's ruling.