155 So. 3d 524
La. Ct. App.2013Background
- Allied Tax Fund, L.L.C. acquired the property at a 2002 tax sale after Chin Hong Bow & Co., Inc. failed to pay 2001 taxes.
- The City issued a tax deed to Allied on August 14, 2003, listing Allied’s address and recorded it October 30, 2003.
- Naquin purchased the property at a 2003 tax sale for 2002 taxes and obtained a tax deed recorded April 20, 2004.
- Allied filed a Petition to Quiet Tax Title and Annul Tax Sale in 2007 seeking to invalidate the Naquin sale and confirm Allied ownership.
- The trial court upheld the sale as valid, authorizing publication-based notice due to Allied’s supposed non-identifiability in public records, which Allied contested.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Allied was entitled to written notice under due process. | Allied’s identity was not ascertainable; publication sufficed. | Naquin contends notice via publication met due process because Allied’s identity could not be reasonably ascertained. | The trial court erred; Allied was entitled to written notice. |
| Whether publication notice alone satisfied due process under Mennonite, given the owner’s identifiability. | Publication was insufficient without notice to Allied because its identity was identifiable. | Publication was adequate where owner’s identity was not readily ascertainable from records. | Publication alone was insufficient; due process requires actual notice to identifiable owners. |
| Whether the November 12, 2003 tax sale to Naquin was valid. | Allied did not receive proper notice; sale should be annulled. | Sale was valid under statute and constitutional provisions. | The sale is an absolute nullity; annulment is ordered. |
| What remedy the court should provide given the nullity of the tax sale. | Return of property rights to Allied. | Protect purchaser’s rights under statutory framework. | Annulment of the tax sale; Allied retains or regains ownership subject to constitutional provisions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mennonite Board of Missions v. Adams, 462 U.S. 791 (U.S. 1983) (notice must be reasonably calculated to apprise mortgagee of pending tax sale; mail or personal service unless identifiable)
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (U.S. 1950) (due process requires notice reasonably calculated to inform interested parties)
- Lewis v. Succession of Johnson, 925 So.2d 1172 (La. 2006) (written notice to all co-owners is required; co-owners cannot be identified by publication alone)
- Adsit v. Park, 81 So. 430 (La. 1919) (notice requirement; due process concerns in tax sales)
- Hamilton v. Royal International Petroleum Corp., 934 So.2d 25 (La. 2006) (due process protections; notice and opportunity to be heard)