262 A.3d 673
R.I.2021Background
- E.T. Investments bought 67 Dorr Ave., East Providence, at a tax sale on April 26, 2018; a tax collector’s deed was recorded May 8, 2018 for unpaid water bills.
- E.T. filed a Superior Court petition to foreclose the owner’s right of redemption and submitted a title-examiner’s report in May 2019; a citation issuing notice was entered May 20, 2019.
- Riley signed for the citation by certified mail on June 6, 2019 but did not file a written appearance or answer within the 20-day return period; default was entered June 27, 2019.
- Riley appeared pro se at a July 10, 2019 hearing, was given three weeks to file objections, filed a late answer July 17, and the court entered a final decree foreclosing his redemption rights on July 31, 2019.
- On appeal Riley argued (1) the court lacked jurisdiction because the citation issued before the order approving the title examiner, and (2) the citation’s language was ambiguous about when an answer was due.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Superior Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the citation issued before the order approving the title examiner | E.T.: sequence did not deprive the court of jurisdiction; the court had exclusive statutory jurisdiction over tax-foreclosure matters | Riley: issuing the citation before approval of the title examiner created a jurisdictional void (citing Pratt) | Court: Not a jurisdictional defect; sequence at most affects the court’s power to act and was waived because Riley did not timely raise it below; Superior Court had jurisdiction; decree affirmed |
| Whether the citation’s language was ambiguous as to when an answer had to be filed | E.T.: citation fixed the return day (20 days after receipt); answer had to be timely filed by that return day | Riley: the term “timely” was ambiguous and could be read to allow filing before entry of decree pro confesso or final decree | Court: Argument waived because not raised in Superior Court; Riley had notice and opportunity to be heard; default and final decree were proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Decathlon Investments v. Medeiros, 252 A.3d 268 (R.I. 2021) (sequence-of-events challenge is not always a subject-matter jurisdiction issue and must be preserved below)
- Pratt v. Woolley, 365 A.2d 424 (R.I. 1976) (Superior Court in tax-foreclosure matters may only hear matters statutorily authorized)
- Johnson v. QBAR Associates, 78 A.3d 48 (R.I. 2013) (foreclosure of right of redemption is a statutory proceeding with limited jurisdiction)
- Zeus Realty Co. v. Jaral Realty, Inc., 653 A.2d 70 (R.I. 1995) (distinguishable factual posture involving notice and return-day issues)
- ABAR Associates v. Luna, 870 A.2d 990 (R.I. 2005) (statutory nature and limited scope of Superior Court jurisdiction in tax-title foreclosures)
- Conley v. Crown Realty, LLC, 223 A.3d 768 (R.I. 2020) (if owner has actual notice and fails to timely answer, due-process concerns are not implicated)