245 A.3d 141
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2021Background
- Thornton Mellon LLC purchased 812 Wedgewood Rd., Baltimore, at a 2017 tax sale and received a certificate of sale.
- Thornton Mellon filed a Complaint to Foreclose the Right of Redemption; on July 10, 2019 the circuit court entered a Judgment Foreclosing the Right of Redemption vesting fee simple title in the plaintiff and directing the City to issue a deed to the plaintiff, “his successors and assigns.”
- Twenty days after judgment, Thornton Mellon filed a Notice of Substitution and recorded assignments of the certificate of sale and the judgment to Ty Webb LLC; Ty Webb moved for an order directing the City to issue a tax deed in its name.
- The City opposed, arguing post-judgment assignments (of the certificate and the judgment) are not permitted and that the certificate is a nullity after foreclosure.
- The circuit court denied the City’s motion to strike the substitution, found the assignment valid, and ordered the City to issue the tax deed to Ty Webb LLC.
- The Court of Special Appeals affirmed, holding the Tax-Property Article permits assignment of certificates of sale, there is no clear statutory bar to assigning the judgment, and the filings were made within the court’s 30-day revisory period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are tax-sale certificates assignable after entry of a foreclosure judgment? | Thornton Mellon: §14-821 expressly permits assignment; assignment may occur post-judgment. | City: certificate represents a lien that ceases on foreclosure and becomes a nullity, so post-judgment assignment is void. | Court: §14-821 unambiguously permits assignment; certificate retains value until deed is executed and delivered. |
| Is a Judgment Foreclosing the Right of Redemption assignable? | Thornton Mellon/Ty Webb: judgments are choses in action and generally assignable absent statutory prohibition. | City: judgment vests absolute title that can only be conveyed by deed; thus judgment not assignable. | Court: no clear statutory prohibition; judgment is a chose in action and assignable in absence of contrary law. |
| Must an assignment be filed before the assignee can enforce the judgment in its name? | Thornton Mellon: substitution and motion filed within 30 days cured any formalities; assignment properly presented to court. | City: substitution after judgment without prior filing is improper and should be struck. | Court: filings were made within the court’s 30-day revisory power and were treated as motions to revise; substitution and request for deed were proper. |
| Did the circuit court exceed its authority in ordering the City to issue a deed to the assignee? | Thornton Mellon/Ty Webb: judgment directed issuance to plaintiff’s "successors and assigns" and statutory scheme contemplates delivery after payment; court acted within authority. | City: issuing deed to assignee undermines recordation, transfer requirements, and municipal interests. | Court: the judgment and TP statutes allow issuance to successors/assigns after required payments; affirmance of order directing deed issuance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Quillens v. Moore, 399 Md. 97 (explaining redemption procedure and timeframe for foreclosure complaints)
- Summers v. Freishtat, 274 Md. 404 (a chose in action is generally assignable absent statutory prohibition)
- Seidel v. Panella, 81 Md. App. 124 (circuit court retains revisory power within 30 days to reopen foreclosure decree)
- Smith v. Lawler, 93 Md. App. 540 (30-day revisory power applies to judgments foreclosing redemption)
- Kingsley v. Makay, 253 Md. 24 (title to land passes only by properly executed and recorded deed)
- Gordon Family P’ship v. Garon Jer, 348 Md. 129 (certificate of sale evidences tax sale; assignment and recording permitted)
- Greenfield v. Heckenbach, 144 Md. App. 108 (certificate holder must satisfy remaining payments before deed is delivered)