319 So.3d 369
La. Ct. App.2021Background
- Lafourche Parish held a tax sale on June 20, 2012 for Lot 15, Ridgefield Heights; LPR, L.L.C. purchased tax-sale title (100%) and the tax sale certificate was recorded July 18, 2012. Plaintiff later purchased an additional 5% interest from a City of Thibodeaux tax purchaser.
- Pre-sale notices: some certified mailings (to "Lynn & Denise Naquin") included one returned unclaimed; other pre-sale first-class mailings to the Naquins were not returned. Post-sale notices (first-class mail) were sent and not returned.
- Plaintiff sued July 19, 2017 under La. R.S. 47:2266 to confirm tax title after the redemptive period; defendants answered and reconvened to annul the Lafourche Parish tax sale, alleging defective notice and due-process problems.
- Trial court found plaintiff failed to show proper notice, declared the Lafourche tax sale null, and granted defendants' reconventional demand; it found the City sale valid but that plaintiff lacked enough interest to force a sheriff’s sale.
- On appeal the First Circuit reversed and remanded: it held the trial court misapplied the law by placing the burden on plaintiff, defendants failed to prove a redemption nullity, and the record showed sufficient notice under the statutes in effect at the time.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Burden of proof in a suit to confirm tax title | LPR: tax deed is prima facie evidence; burden shifts to party attacking sale | Naquin: trial court required plaintiff to prove validity | Court: plaintiff met prima facie showing; burden rests on attackers; trial court erred in placing burden on plaintiff; reversed |
| Validity of pre- and post-sale notice / Due process | LPR: notices (including post-sale mailed notices) and recorded tax certificate satisfied statutory due-process efforts | Naquin: certified pre-sale notice returned; claimed not duly notified and deprived of due process | Court: defects in pre-sale notice alone are not automatic nullities under post-2008 law; post-sale mailed notices complied with La. R.S. 47:2156 and defendants failed to prove lack of “duly notified” status; sale upheld |
| Whether tax sale is an absolute nullity vs. relative nullity | LPR: under Act 819 (2008), tax sales are not absolute nullities; only enumerated relative nullities may annul a sale | Naquin: sought annulment based on insufficient notice/due process | Court: annulment requires proof of a statutory nullity (e.g., redemption nullity); defendants did not prove redemption nullity; trial court erred to nullify sale |
| Relief if annulment granted (setting aside unless defendants pay purchase price, taxes, costs, interest) | LPR: if annulment occurs, it should be conditioned on defendants paying amounts within a year (alternate relief) | Naquin: sought annulment without conditions | Court: pretermitted because appellate court reversed annulment; remanded to enter judgment consistent with findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Central Properties v. Fairway Gardenhomes, LLC, 225 So. 3d 441 (La. 2017) (governing law on notice, tax sale title, and statutes in effect on date of sale)
- Alpha Capital US Bank v. White, 268 So. 3d 1124 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2018) (post-2008 law limits grounds for nullifying tax sales; notice defects not automatic nullities)
- Krieger v. USDT Properties/Mutual of Omaha Bank, 199 So. 3d 1194 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2016) (tax deed is prima facie evidence and shifts burden to attacker)
- Cressionnie v. Intrepid, Inc., 879 So. 2d 736 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2004) (former guidance that purchaser putting title at issue allows owner to assert defenses including redemption nullity)
- Evans v. Lungrin, 708 So. 2d 731 (La. 1998) (appellate court may apply correct law de novo when trial court legal errors affect fact-finding)
- Lewis v. Succession of Johnson, 925 So. 2d 1172 (La. 2006) (due-process notice principles for tax sales)
- Mennonite Bd. of Missions v. Adams, 462 U.S. 791 (U.S. 1983) (constitutional due-process standards for notice of tax-related sales)
- Securities Mortgage Co. v. Triplett, 374 So. 2d 1226 (La. 1979) (mailing not returned is evidence of receipt effort)
- Stow-Serge v. Side by Side Redevelopment, Inc., 302 So. 3d 71 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2020) (interpretation of La. R.S. 47:2156 post-sale notice requirements)