249 W.Va. 389
W. Va. Ct. App.2023Background
- In October 2021 Jay Folse purchased the delinquent tax lien on Lot 37 in Cameron, WV; State Auditor approved the sale and notices were served so Folse’s right to a deed accrued after the protected redemption period.
- Owner Stanley Lahew failed to redeem by the deadline; Folse had to pay the balance and request a deed within the statutory window (he had not completed payment when events unfolded).
- On May 17, 2022, after Folse’s right to the deed had accrued but before he paid/requested issuance, Lahew quitclaimed Lot 37 to the City of Cameron; the Deputy Commissioner then set aside Folse’s purchase and refunded his payment, citing municipal ownership/merger.
- Folse filed a § 11A-3-60 petition in circuit court to compel issuance of the tax deed; the circuit court dismissed, finding the City’s acquisition extinguished the lien by merger and no refusal by the Deputy Commissioner.
- The Intermediate Court of Appeals reversed: it held Lahew’s conveyance was ineffective because, after the protected redemption period, a delinquent owner retains only the right to redeem and not to convey; it remanded with instructions to set aside the conveyance and give Folse 58 days to pay and request the deed, but denied damages and costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Folse) | Defendant's Argument (Respondents/City) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Can a delinquent owner convey after purchaser's right accrues but before deed issuance? | Owner lacks right to convey after protected redemption period; conveyance ineffective. | Owner still holds title and may convey; Southland Properties distinguishable. | Conveyance ineffective; after accrual owner only has right to redeem, not to convey. |
| 2) Does municipal acquisition extinguish the tax lien by merger? | Merger need not be reached because conveyance was ineffective; merger as applied to state agencies differs from municipalities. | City acquisition triggered merger and extinguished the lien. | Court avoided deciding merger; unnecessary because conveyance invalidated. |
| 3) Did the Deputy Commissioner have authority to set aside the purchase and decide title/merger? | Deputy Commissioner exceeded authority by deciding title and merger—those are matters for the courts. | Deputy Commissioner reasonably acted to administer tax-lien process. | Deputy Commissioner exceeded judicial role in deciding title, but his action was not without reasonable cause. |
| 4) What relief is available under § 11A-3-60 (deed issuance, damages, fees)? | Seeks deed issuance, damages, costs, jury trial. | Relief limited to statutory remedy; damages generally not available; costs awarded only if refusal without reasonable cause. | Ordered status quo ante: set aside conveyance and give Folse 58 days to pay/request deed; denied monetary damages and fees. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Southland Properties, LLC v. Janes, 240 W. Va. 323 (2018) (owner’s post-accrual interest is diminished and inextricably tied to redemption)
- EB Dorev Holdings, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep’t of Admin., Real Est. Div., 236 W. Va. 627 (2014) (application of merger doctrine to extinguish tax liens against properties acquired by a state agency)
- Ancient Energy, Ltd. v. Ferguson, 239 W. Va. 723 (2017) (delinquent owner retains title until deed issuance but rights are limited)
- Belcher v. Greer, 181 W. Va. 196 (1989) (limitations on rights of delinquent taxpayers in mineral-rights context)
- State ex rel. Ayers v. Cline, 176 W. Va. 123 (1985) (statutory remedies govern and equitable relief is limited when legislature provides a remedy)