254 A.3d 194
Vt.2021Background
- Four Fair Haven properties had delinquent taxes; collector Durfee initiated tax-sale procedures in late 2013 and the properties were sold on March 18, 2014, with the Town as sole purchaser.
- The statutory reports of sale were not recorded within 30 days as required by 32 V.S.A. § 5255; deeds to the Town were executed April 1, 2015; reports were not recorded until November 30, 2017.
- Plaintiffs sued pro se on March 22, 2018 asserting quiet title, trespass, conversion, and related claims, contending the tax deeds were void due to the collector’s failure to timely record the reports of sale.
- The Town moved for summary judgment, arguing plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the one-year statute of limitations in 32 V.S.A. § 5294(4); plaintiffs argued the three-year limitation in 32 V.S.A. § 5263 (pre-amendment) applied.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the Town, concluding § 5294(4) applied and that plaintiffs’ claims were time-barred; plaintiffs appealed.
- The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed, holding plaintiffs’ challenge was an action questioning the validity of a tax collector’s acts and thus governed by the one-year limitation of § 5294(4).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which statute of limitations governs a suit to recover land against a town grantee where plaintiff alleges the tax collector failed to record a report of sale? | § 5263 (three years) governs actions to recover land against grantee; plaintiffs’ suit is a § 5263 action and therefore timely. | § 5294(4) (one year) governs suits where a taxpayer questions the validity of acts of the tax collector relating to collection; plaintiffs’ claim challenges such acts and is time-barred. | The court held § 5294(4) applies because the claim challenges a tax collector’s procedural act in enforcing collection, so the one-year limitation bars the suit. |
| Does § 5263 apply only to third parties (non-taxpayers) claiming under a taxpayer? | § 5263 should apply to taxpayers who sue to recover land against a grantee; plaintiff is not excluded. | § 5294(4) applies to taxpayer challenges and § 5263 applies to those claiming under a taxpayer (per some prior federal decision). | Court rejected the plaintiff/third-party dichotomy: § 5263’s language covers both but § 5294(4) carves out challenges specifically predicated on invalidity of tax-collector acts. |
| Does § 5294(4)’s phrasing (“collection is sought to be enforced”) limit it to pre-sale conduct? | Phrase implies § 5294(4) covers only pre-sale conduct; post-sale acts (e.g., recording reports) fall outside. | § 5251(2)’s broad definition of “collection” includes all acts up to the last act by tax collector, including post-sale acts like recording reports. | Court held § 5294(4) encompasses post-sale procedural acts; verb tense does not restrict statute to pre-sale conduct. |
| Would applying § 5294(4) produce an absurd result because the one-year clock may run before deeds issue? | Yes; it could require challenges before the deed exists, an absurd or illogical outcome. | The legislature’s choice reflects policy balancing repose and rights; plaintiffs had notice of the omission within the one-year period here. | Court found no true absurdity here and declined to override plain statutory text; any legislative fix is for the Legislature. |
Key Cases Cited
- Turner v. Spera, 140 Vt. 19, 433 A.2d 307 (Vt. 1981) (taxpayer’s suit to void tax collector’s deed for defective notice barred by § 5294(4) one-year limitation)
- Bogie v. Town of Barnet, 129 Vt. 46, 270 A.2d 898 (Vt. 1970) (taxpayer has options including redemption, § 5294 challenge within one year, or § 5263 suit to recover land subject to its limitation)
- Hudson v. Town of E. Montpelier, 161 Vt. 168, 638 A.2d 561 (Vt. 1993) (court may affirm judgment on alternative reasoning)
- Our Lady of Ephesus House of Prayer, Inc. v. Town of Jamaica, 178 Vt. 35, 869 A.2d 145 (Vt. 2005) (when statutes overlap, the more specific provision controls)