195 So. 3d 501
La. Ct. App.2016Background
- Property at 1805 Line Avenue, Shreveport, owned by Michael H. Turney since 2000; Turney used it for business and residence. Taxes went unpaid and the property was subject to successive City tax sales in 2008, 2009, and 2010; Adair Asset Management purchased the tax-sale certificate in 2010.
- The City mailed presale notices in 2009–2010 per the 2009 tax roll (which listed Cody Investments/Husker Partners as the tax debtor) by regular mail; an occupant letter was mailed to 1805 Line Avenue. Newspaper notice was also published.
- Adair (tax-sale purchaser) sent certified post-sale redemption notices on September 5, 2012, to Turney (including to 1805 Line Ave.), mortgagees, and prior purchasers more than six months before the end of the 3‑year redemption period; Turney (through an employee) signed for the notice mailed to the property.
- Turney sued to annul the 2010 tax sale and the trial court found pre-sale notice deficient under Mennonite and declared the sale null and void; trial court refused to treat Adair’s post-sale notices as curing the defect.
- On appeal, the court applied the 2008 statutory revision (effective Jan. 2009) to La. tax-sale law, holding (1) the City complied with the then-applicable presale notice statute, (2) post‑sale redemption notice under La. R.S. 47:2156 is the key notice and was properly sent by Adair, and (3) the 2008 revision abolished absolute nullities—only three relative nullities remain (redemption, payment, sale to prohibited person)—so the tax sale was not void.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Turney) | Defendant's Argument (Adair) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the City’s presale notice adequate? | Presale occupant notice by regular mail to the property did not constitute constitutionally adequate notice under Mennonite. | The City complied with statutory presale mailing requirements then in effect; occupant mail was an added precaution. | The statute at the time required regular mail to the tax debtor of record; the City complied and the trial court erred in finding presale notice legally insufficient. |
| Can post-sale redemption notice cure any presale notice defects? | Post‑sale notice sent years after sale cannot cure lack of presale constitutional notice. | Post‑sale notice under La. R.S. 47:2156 (duly notified) satisfies due process if sent at least six months before redemption period ends; who sends it and whether it results in actual receipt is immaterial. | Court held post‑sale notice is the important notice under the new Act; Adair’s certified notices were sent timely and Turney was duly notified. |
| Is a tax sale for defective notice an absolute nullity or a relative nullity under the 2008 revisions? | Turney relied on prior law and Mennonite to treat defective presale notice as rendering sale void. | The 2008 statutory regime abolished absolute nullities for notice defects; only three relative nullities exist and can be cured. | The court held the Legislature replaced absolute nullities with limited relative nullities; Turney failed to prove a redemption nullity. |
| Did the 2008 statutory revision conflict with Mennonite or violate due process? | Turney argued his constitutional rights under Mennonite were violated by lack of presale notice. | Adair argued the statutory scheme provides alternative constitutionally sufficient notice methods (esp. post‑sale redemption notice) and is presumptively constitutional. | The court upheld the statutory scheme as consistent with due process when its procedures (post‑sale notices) are followed; no constitutional infirmity found in application here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mennonite Bd. of Missions v. Adams, 462 U.S. 791 (Sup. Ct.) (establishes that mail notice to reasonably ascertainable owners is required for due process)
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (Sup. Ct.) (notice must be reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties under all circumstances)
- Fields v. State, 714 So.2d 1244 (La.) (property owners charged with knowledge of statutory provisions affecting property)
- Lewis v. Succession of Johnson, 925 So.2d 1172 (La.) (publication alone insufficient to satisfy due process when owners are ascertainable)