415 P.3d 654
Wyo.2018Background
- Montierth bought property at a 2007 tax sale and sought a tax deed; he mailed statutory notices on Jan 17, 2013 and published notice beginning Jan 18, 2013 but did not personally serve the owner, Alvesteffer.
- Montierth's written notice stated erroneously that the right of redemption expired on August 2, 2011, while Montierth announced he would apply for a tax deed on May 2, 2013 (within the 4–6 year window after sale).
- Deutsche Bank held the mortgage (assigned in 2009), received Montierth's mailed notice, did not redeem, and later contested the tax deed as void for defective notice and lack of personal service on the owner.
- The county issued and recorded a tax deed in May 2013; Montierth invested substantially in the property thereafter.
- The district court granted Deutsche Bank summary judgment holding the tax deed void for defective notice; Montierth appeals. The court also rejected Montierth's equitable defenses (laches, unclean hands) and declined to rule on statutory reimbursement claims as unripe.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge tax deed | Montierth: Deutsche Bank lacks standing though named defendant | Deutsche Bank: as mortgagee with a concrete interest, it may challenge defect in notice | Held: Deutsche Bank has standing under Wyoming test (Brimmer factors) |
| Defective notice re: redemption deadline | Montierth: date statement may be accurate or harmless; substantial compliance should suffice | Deutsche Bank: statute requires accurate statement of when redemption expires; the notice here was inaccurate and thus invalid | Held: Notice was defective (stated redemption expired 2011 though application date gave later deadline); tax deed void |
| Reliance on record-excluded document by district court | Montierth: district court relied on a document not in record, requiring reversal | Deutsche Bank: document consideration was harmless | Held: Court erred to consider the document but error was harmless and not reversible |
| Equitable defenses (laches, unclean hands) | Montierth: Deutsche Bank delayed and failed duties; doctrines bar its challenge | Deutsche Bank: failure to foreclose or pay taxes does not preclude statutory challenge; no authority supports estoppel here | Held: Laches and unclean hands do not bar Deutsche Bank's challenge |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (standing requires injury in fact, causation, and redressability)
- Mennonite Bd. of Missions v. Adams, 462 U.S. 791 (U.S. 1983) (mortgagee has substantial interest affected by tax sale; notice requirement protects mortgagee)
- State ex rel. Bishop v. Bramblette, 5 P.2d 279 (Wyo. 1931) (notice must clearly and accurately state redemption expiration; defective notice voids tax deed)
- Burns v. State, 173 P. 55 (Wyo. 1918) (similar holding that premature statement of redemption expiration invalidates tax deed)
- Centrella v. Morris, 597 P.2d 958 (Wyo. 1979) (appellate court may consider summary judgment as originally before it despite district court’s terse findings)
- Barlow v. Lonabaugh, 156 P.2d 289 (Wyo. 1945) (limited instance where substantial compliance upheld due to particular equities)