382 So.3d 312
La. Ct. App.2023Background
- Spain became delinquent on property taxes for 6310 Stratford Place; the City (through contractor Archon) sent multiple pre-sale certified-mail notices in 2011–2012 that were returned unclaimed.
- The property was adjudicated to the City after no bidder at the September 25, 2012 tax sale; a tax sale certificate was recorded in 2016 and Spain did not redeem.
- On July 1, 2022 the City sent a post-adjudication/pre-deprivation notice (which Spain admits he received) giving 60 days to redeem or file suit; Spain did not act and the City sold the property to H&H on September 19, 2022.
- Spain filed suit November 22, 2022 seeking annulment of the tax adjudication and sale as an absolute nullity based on alleged defective pre-sale notice; Archon filed exceptions of no cause of action and prescription.
- The district court overruled Archon’s exceptions, finding pre-sale notice defects supported absolute nullity and that prescription did not apply; this court granted supervisory review, reversed, sustained Archon’s exception of no cause of action, and dismissed Spain’s absolute-nullity claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Spain) | Defendant's Argument (Archon) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether alleged defects in pre-tax-sale notice can support a claim of absolute nullity after the owner received post-sale/post-adjudication notice | Pre-sale certified-mail failures render the adjudication/tax sale an absolute nullity | Pre-sale notice defects are insufficient where the owner received proper post-sale notice; post-sale notice cures pre-sale defects | Court held pre-sale defects alone do not state a cause of action for absolute nullity where post-sale notice was received; exception of no cause of action sustained and claim dismissed |
| Whether prescription bars an absolute-nullity action (as raised by exception of prescription) | Absolute-nullity claims are imprescriptible (district court conclusion) | Prescription may apply depending on the claim; here Archon argued no cause of action so prescription need not be reached | Appellate court did not decide prescription because it dismissed the absolute-nullity claim on the merits; district court’s prescription ruling was unnecessary to resolve after dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Phillips v. Gibbs, 39 So.3d 795 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2010) (standard of review and pleading sufficiency for exception of no cause of action)
- Sunset Harbour v. Brown, 356 So.3d 1167 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2023) (pre-sale notice defects alone are insufficient to annul a tax sale)
- Cmty. Associates, Inc. v. Taylor, 364 So.3d 1 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2019) (same: post-sale notice deficiencies, not pre-sale, support annulment)
- Klein v. Henderson, 332 So.3d 764 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2021) (noting post-sale notice can cure pre-sale notice defects)
- Stow-Serge v. Side by Side Redevelopment, Inc., 302 So.3d 71 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2020) (discussing effect of 2008 tax-sale revisions on attacks to sales)
- Precept Credit Opportunities Fund, L.P. v. Walker, 343 So.3d 299 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2022) (recognizing that post-2008 law limits attacks to tax-sales as absolute nullities)
- PCOF Properties, L.L.C. v. Joseph, 332 So.3d 220 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2021) (observing that only post-sale notice deficiencies provide a ground for nullification)