367 So.3d 25
La. Ct. App.2022Background
- Property at 8705 Apricot St., New Orleans was adjudicated blighted in 2010.
- Eclectic purchased a tax sale certificate for unpaid 2013–2015 ad valorem taxes on April 12, 2016 (recorded May 27, 2016) and sent post-sale notices on July 18, 2017.
- Eclectic obtained a judgment quieting tax title on May 17, 2018. About two months later Andrew Wilson, Jr. quitclaimed any interest to Easy Living, LLC.
- Easy Living filed to annul the tax sale, seek redemption and cancel the tax sale (filed April 9, 2019); Eclectic filed exceptions of no right of action and insufficiency of service and sought mandamus to cancel the quitclaim record.
- The trial court denied mandamus, overruled Eclectic’s exception, granted Easy Living’s summary judgment annulling the tax sale and the May 17, 2018 quiet-title judgment (Dec. 6, 2021); this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Easy Living have a right of action to annul the tax sale? | Eclectic: Easy Living lacks standing because title had been quieted and ownership transferred to Eclectic before the quitclaim. | Easy Living: as transferee/party with an interest it may seek annulment/redemption. | Court: Exception without merit—record lacked the petition in appendix for review, trial court’s overruling affirmed. |
| Should the tax sale / 2018 quiet-title judgment be annulled? (absolute nullity vs. redemption nullity; adequacy of notice) | Eclectic: post-sale notices satisfied due process; blighted property carries an 18‑month redemption period so the sale and judgment stand. | Easy Living: pre‑sale advertisement defects and insufficient pre‑termination redemptive notice render the sale subject to annulment; alternatively, a redemption nullity exists because the party was not duly notified six months before redemptive period ended. | Court: Pre‑sale advertisement timing met statutory 30‑day requirement; but post‑sale notice was sent only ~4 months before the 18‑month redemption period ended, so the claimant was not "duly notified" six months prior — redemption nullity existed and annulment was proper; trial court’s grant of summary judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Precept Credit Opportunities Fund, L.P. v. Elmore, 338 So.3d 87 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2022) (post‑tax‑sale redemptive notice can satisfy due‑process notice requirements)
- Deichmann v. Moeller, 318 So.3d 833 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2018) (recognizing absolute nullity where pre‑tax‑sale publication requirements are not met)
- Stow‑Serge v. Side by Side Redevelopment, Inc., 302 So.3d 71 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2020) (relative nullities are curable and post‑sale notice may suffice)
- Eagle Pipe & Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp., 79 So.3d 246 (La. 2011) (standard for reviewing whether plaintiff belongs to the class with legal interest for right‑of‑action exception)
- N. Clark, L.L.C. v. Chisesi, 206 So.3d 1013 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2016) (review starts with pleadings when deciding exception of no right of action)
- New Orleans Redevelopment Authority v. Schreiner, 899 So.2d 19 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2004) (property adjudicated blighted remains so until placed back into commerce or otherwise unadjudicated)