252 A.3d 268
R.I.2021Background:
- Decathlon purchased 157 Summit Street (East Providence) at a tax sale on April 26, 2018; a collector’s deed was recorded May 8, 2018.
- Decathlon filed a petition to foreclose the owners’ right of redemption on May 13, 2019 (just over one year after the sale) and submitted a title report the same day.
- The Superior Court approved the title examiner on May 20, 2019 (order entered May 30); a citation issued May 20 directing interested parties to answer within 20 days.
- Leonilde was served May 28 and Michael was served June 5; both filed pro se answers on June 19; Leonilde’s answer was untimely and default entered against other interested parties on June 24.
- Michael’s timely answer contested notice to the mortgagee (re: unpaid water bill) but did not include an offer to redeem as required by statute; at the July 10, 2019 hearing Decathlon was the only party present and the court entered a final decree foreclosing redemption.
- On appeal the Medeiroses (now represented) argued (1) the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction because Decathlon failed to follow the statutory chronology for tax-title proceedings and (2) a due-process defect because Decathlon did not provide language-service notices per this Court’s Executive Order; the Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court lacked jurisdiction because Decathlon failed to follow statutory chronology for tax-title proceedings | Decathlon complied with tax-sale procedures; Superior Court had authority to resolve the foreclosure petition | Failure to strictly follow §44-9-27 sequence created a jurisdictional defect (Pratt-based) | Waived — defendants failed to raise below; not a true subject-matter jurisdiction defect; appeal barred by raise-or-waive rule; decree affirmed |
| Whether failure to provide language-service notices violated due process (Executive Order 2012-05) | Decathlon argued statutory process was satisfied and Michael’s answer was procedurally deficient (no offer to redeem) | Lack of language-service notice deprived defendants of due process | Waived — not raised in trial court and no novel constitutional rule invoked; claim not considered on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Pratt v. Woolley, 365 A.2d 424 (R.I. 1976) (tax-title proceedings cannot be used to litigate unrelated claims; strict statutory scope of jurisdiction)
- Pollard v. Acer Group, 870 A.2d 429 (R.I. 2005) (raise-or-waive rule; parties may not reframe nonjurisdictional issues as jurisdictional to avoid waiver)
- Federal National Mortgage Ass'n v. Malinou, 101 A.3d 860 (R.I. 2014) (issues not raised below are generally waived on appeal)
- State v. Brown, 9 A.3d 1240 (R.I. 2010) (narrow constitutional exception to raise-or-waive where novel rule of law applies)
- Gordon v. State, 18 A.3d 467 (R.I. 2011) (rejecting application of constitutional exception where no novel rule implicated)
- ABAR Associates v. Luna, 870 A.3d 990 (R.I. 2005) (recognizing that Superior Court jurisdiction in tax foreclosure is narrowly circumscribed)