Harpagon Mo, LLC v. Clay County Collector
2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 310
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Property at 5121 N. Elmwood Ave, Kansas City, Missouri, was taxed; tax sale occurred after nonpayment; Sunrise Atlantic bought at sale (Aug 28, 2006) and obtained Certificate of Purchase; redemption period governed by §140.420 until Oct 16, 2007; Citifinancial held a deed of trust already; Sunrise Atlantic notified Citifinancial of redemption rights by July 16, 2007 to redeem by Oct 16, 2007; Collector issued a Collector's Deed to Sunrise Atlantic (Oct 25, 2007) and Sunrise Atlantic recorded (Oct 31, 2007); Sunrise Atlantic assigned its interest to Harpagon; Harpagon filed to quiet title (Mar 21, 2008); default judgment against former owner (Aug 6, 2008); circuit court granted Citifinancial summary judgment, Harpagon appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §140.610 grounds govern challenge to the deed. | Harpagon argues §140.610 exclusive grounds apply. | Citifinancial contends grounds exist under §140.405 due to notice failures. | §140.405 notice can void the deed; issues evolve beyond §140.610; summary judgment improper on this basis. |
| Whether the affidavit requirement for third offering applies. | Harpagon asserts affidavits were required to prove notice to Citifinancial. | Citifinancial contends affidavit requirement applies only to third offerings. | Affidavit requirement not applicable to this first-offering tax sale. |
| Whether notice to Citifinancial was properly sent to the proper address. | Harpagon contends due diligence failed; proper last known address not used. | Sunrise Atlantic sent notice to multiple known Citifinancial addresses; receipts show delivery. | Sunrise used reasonable due diligence; proper address used; summary judgment improper on this basis. |
| Whether notice stated the correct redemption period for Citifinancial. | Sunrise informed Citifinancial of redemption until 90 days from notice date; missed owner redemption period details. | No due process requirement to state specific owner redemption period; Citifinancial had until Oct 16, 2007 to redeem. | No due process requirement to inform the precise owner redemption dates; information provided sufficed. |
| Overall, should summary judgment be reversed and remanded? | Citifinancial failed to establish valid summary-judgment grounds. | Citifinancial defense justified by notice issues. | Judgment reversed and remanded for further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Crossland v. Thompson, 317 S.W.3d 635 (Mo. App. S.D. 2010) (notice requirements; due diligence standard for last known address)
- Schlereth v. Hardy, 280 S.W.3d 47 (Mo. Banc. 2009) (due process and notice validity in tax sales)
- Schwartz v. Dey, 665 S.W.2d 933 (Mo. Banc. 1984) (due process requirements for notice in tax sale)
- Keylien Corp. v. Johnson, 284 S.W.3d 606 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009) (notice sufficiency and validity in tax-sale context)
- Glasgow Enters., Inc. v. Brooks, 234 S.W.3d 407 (Mo. App. E.D. 2007) (notice and redemption context in tax sales)