484 S.W.3d 806
Mo. Ct. App.2016Background
- Emanuel B. Dace owned property sold at a tax foreclosure sale; the circuit court entered judgment confirming the sale on November 25, 2014.
- Dace, proceeding pro se, claimed (1) he had paid the delinquent taxes before the sale, (2) the Director of Collections proceeded with confirmation despite that knowledge and failed to give him notice of the confirmation hearing, and (3) the court improperly denied him a hearing and imposed a $5,000 cash surety/appeal bond.
- Dace filed a post-judgment "Request for Hearing on No Service of Notice Confirmation" about 63 days after the confirmation judgment (treated as a motion for rehearing); the circuit court denied it as untimely.
- Dace filed his notice of appeal 79 days after the confirmation judgment; the Director moved to dismiss for untimeliness under Section 141.590 (statutory 20-day appeal deadline after confirmation).
- The Missouri Court of Appeals found the notice of appeal untimely, held that timely filing is jurisdictional, and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred by allowing confirmation despite Dace’s prior payment and lack of notice | Dace: Director knew he paid taxes before sale and did not notify him of confirmation; sale should not be confirmed | Director: Confirmation judgment was entered; procedural deadlines apply; no relief after judgment deadline passed | Court: Did not reach merits — appeal dismissed as untimely; no jurisdiction to consider substance |
| Whether confirmation should be set aside because tax money was not refunded | Dace: Sale confirmed despite his payment and no refund has been made | Director: Procedural default; appeal not timely filed so court lacks jurisdiction to review refund claim | Court: Dismissed appeal for lack of jurisdiction; did not resolve refund claim on merits |
| Whether post-judgment hearings or relief available and appellate bond order was improper | Dace: Trial court erred in denying hearing on lack of notice and in ordering $5,000 cash surety/appeal bond | Director: Judgment final; motions were untimely under Rule 78.04 and statutory appeal deadlines govern | Court: Denied review because notice of appeal was untimely; procedural deadlines control jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Spicer v. Donald N. Spicer Revocable Living Trust, 336 S.W.3d 466 (Mo. banc 2011) (timely filing of a notice of appeal is jurisdictional)
- Collector of Revenue of City of St. Louis v. Parcels of Land Encumbered with Delinquent Tax Liens, 350 S.W.3d 840 (Mo. App. 2011) (strict 20-day deadline to appeal judgment confirming sheriff’s sale)
- State ex rel. Missouri Pipeline Co. v. Missouri Public Service Com’n, 307 S.W.3d 162 (Mo. App. 2009) (construction of statutory deadlines in light of appellate rules)
- J.L. v. Lancaster, 453 S.W.3d 348 (Mo. App. 2015) (pro se litigants must comply with Supreme Court rules and are held to same standards as attorneys)