The writing is horribly obfuscated. What it means to say is that the original bill was $134. Presumably he received dozens of notices and warnings that it neede

The writing is horribly obfuscated. What it means to say is that the original bill was $134. Presumably he received dozens of notices and warnings that it needed to be paid, before it was sold as a lien. The lien holder would then have sent notices and warnings that the debt needed to be paid. Eventually after no response, it filed foreclosure proceedings in the court (at some significant cost). At that point, the son decided to pay the original tax bill, however the holder of the lien presumably wanted its legal costs paid before it would surrender the lien. What happened next was very unjust. But would make more sense if the article was clear on the timeline of events.