78 A.3d 48
R.I.2013Background
- Johnson owned a Cumberland condo; QBAR purchased the tax lien and obtained a tax deed in August 2009 for Fire District taxes.
- QBAR filed a petition to foreclose Johnson's right of redemption on July 9, 2010; notices were recorded July 12, 2010 and August 16, 2010 (amended).
- Johnson answered September 28, 2010; counsel entered appearance May 10, 2011; multiple continuances followed.
- Final decree foreclosing the right of redemption was entered August 16, 2011 after Johnson did not appear; title vested in QBAR and notice filed August 18, 2011.
- Johnson filed a separate action to vacate the decree under § 44-9-24 on November 9, 2011; Superior Court granted summary judgment for QBAR on May 15, 2012; Johnson appealed.
- Issue on appeal: whether § 44-9-24 permits vacatur for inadequate notice, whether a default is required, and whether other defects (entity status, notice errors) affect the decree.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of notice under § 44-9-24 | Johnson asserts notices incorrectly named the Cumberland tax collector, not the Fire District, constituting inadequate notice. | QBAR contends Johnson received actual notice and the defect was not substantial or misleading; § 44-9-24 limits vacatur to inadequate notice or invalid tax sale. | Not fatal here; actual notice sufficed; vacatur limited to substantial notice defects or invalid sale. |
| Default prerequisite for final decree | Johnson argues a default was required before a final decree could enter. | § 44-9-30 permits entry of a final decree without a default if conditions are satisfied. | No default required; final decree valid under § 44-9-30. |
| Other defects (entity status, constitutional challenges) | Johnson contends QBAR’s entity status and tax deed irregularities undermine validity; raises constitutional challenges to § 44-9-24. | These arguments were not properly preserved; raise-or-waive rule applies. | Not decided; raised arguments deemed waived/raised outside proper procedure. |
Key Cases Cited
- DePina v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., 63 A.3d 871 (R.I. 2013) (defines residual standards for vacatur grounds in tax-title context)
- Rafaelian v. Perfecto Iron Works, Inc., 68 A.3d 57 (R.I. 2013) (tax sale foreclosure proceeding is a limited statutory remedy)
- ABAR Associates v. Luna, 870 A.2d 990 (R.I. 2005) (stability and due-process considerations in tax-title scheme)
- Medeiros v. Bankers Trust Co., 38 A.3d 1112 (R.I. 2012) (tax-forfeiture scheme balances government and private rights)
- Kildeer Realty v. Brewster Realty Corp., 826 A.2d 961 (R.I. 2003) (decree shall forever bar all rights of redemption when procedures followed)
- Pollard v. Acer Group, 870 A.2d 429 (R.I. 2005) (raise-or-waive rule governs arguments not properly raised below)