Booneville Collision Repair, Inc. v. City of Booneville, Mississippi
152 So. 3d 265
| Miss. | 2014Background
- BCR bought property in Booneville and, despite a title search, later discovered unpaid municipal taxes for 2008–2009 that had been sold at tax sales under different PPIN numbers; BCR redeemed the property by paying those taxes.
- BCR alleged the City and municipal tax collector Sheila Bolden failed to file certified tax-sale lists with the chancery clerk as required by Miss. Code § 27-41-79, so notice was not placed on the land records or cross-referenced to BCR’s known PPIN.
- BCR sued under two theories: (1) a statutory claim against the tax collector and clerk under § 27-41-79 (liability on official bond for failure to perform statutory duties), and (2) a negligence claim under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act (MTCA), after giving MTCA notice of claim.
- The chancery court granted defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motions, dismissing both claims—reasoning (a) Boyle v. Matthews barred recovery under § 27-41-79, and (b) MTCA immunity applied because the claims arose out of tax assessment or collection—and entered final judgment as to the City and Bolden.
- The Mississippi Supreme Court reviewed de novo and considered (1) whether § 27-41-79 applies to municipal tax collectors and permits BCR’s statutory bond claim, and (2) whether MTCA precludes or immunizes the claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 27-41-79 apply to municipal tax collectors such that a municipal collector can be liable on the official bond for failure to file tax-sale lists? | § 27-41-79 liability applies to municipal collectors because Chapter 41 applies to municipalities and municipal tax statutes incorporate Chapter 41 procedures. | Section specific to municipalities (§ 21-33-63) does not explicitly include the liability clause, so municipal collectors are not subject to § 27-41-79 liability. | Held: § 27-41-79 applies to municipal tax collectors (read harmoniously with § 21-33-63 and § 27-41-5). |
| Did BCR state a claim under § 27-41-79 for failure to file tax-sale lists? | BCR argues the tax-sale lists were not filed/cross-referenced, depriving it of notice; statute permits suit on official bond for actual damages. | Defendants relied on Boyle to argue no duty or remedy to remote purchasers. | Held: BCR stated a § 27-41-79 claim; Boyle does not preclude suits under § 27-41-79 where the statutory duty was breached. |
| Is a § 27-41-79 action a tort claim governed exclusively by the MTCA (thus precluding a separate statutory bond action)? | BCR: § 27-41-79 creates a statutory, non-tort remedy on the official bond distinct from MTCA. | Defendants: MTCA is exclusive remedy for claims against governmental entities; plaintiff previously invoked MTCA. | Held: § 27-41-79 is a separate statutory action (not a tort) and is not displaced by the MTCA. |
| Are the City and Bolden immune under MTCA § 11-46-9(l)(i) or discretionary-function immunity for the negligence claim? | BCR: Failure to file tax-sale lists is a ministerial duty intended to provide public notice and is separate from tax assessment/collection, so MTCA immunity does not apply. | Defendants: Filing/recording tax-sale lists is part of tax assessment/collection process; claims "arise out of" assessment or collection and are barred; discretionary-function immunity alternatively applies. | Held: Negligence claim is subject to MTCA but immunity under § 11-46-9(l)(i) does not apply because failure to file is ministerial and its purpose (public notice/land records) is attenuated from assessment/collection; discretionary-function immunity also does not bar recovery. |
Key Cases Cited
- Boyle v. Matthews, 18 So.2d 156 (Miss. 1944) (applies common-law public-duty rule where no applicable statutory remedy; distinguishes situations where statutory duties/ remedies exist)
- Alexander v. Taylor, 928 So.2d 992 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006) (statutory bond claims for failure to perform tax-sale statutory duties are distinct from tort claims covered by MTCA)
- Little v. Mississippi Dep’t of Transportation, 129 So.3d 132 (Miss. 2013) (ministerial duties mandated by statute are not shielded by MTCA discretionary-function immunity)
- Watkins ex rel. Watkins v. Miss. Dep’t of Human Servs., 132 So.3d 1037 (Miss. 2014) (discusses MTCA exclusivity for tort claims against governmental entities)
- Murray v. United States, 686 F.2d 1320 (8th Cir. 1982) (federal FTCA precedent finding redemption-related claims arise out of tax collection; cited by dissent for broader construction of tax-collection immunity)