63 A.3d 871
R.I.2013Background
- PWSB notices mislisted Lot 456 as Lot 486 and DePina’s water bill; mortgagees did not receive notice as required by §44-9-11(a).
- Tax sale on May 29, 2008 advertised as Plat 5, Lot 486 but actual property was Lot 456; sale deed issued to Amy Realty purported to convey Lot 486.
- Amy Realty obtained a corrective deed from PWSB purporting to convey Plat 5, Lot 456, recorded Sept. 2009; redemption deed reconveying Lot 486 to Valdez was prepared.
- Amy Realty foreclosed Lot 456 after one-year redemption period; final decree of foreclosure entered December 2009 without plaintiffs’ response.
- In April 2010, plaintiffs sought injunctive/declaratory relief under §44-9-24 to vacate the foreclosure decree; 2011 summary judgment favored plaintiffs, vacating the decree on multiple grounds including the corrective deed issues.
- Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed, holding the corrective deed invalid and that §44-9-24 permits vacating a final foreclosure deed for the invalid tax sale where taxes were paid on the property actually sold (Lot 486 had no taxes due).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §44-9-24 safety valve permits vacating the final foreclosure decree. | MERS et al. relied on §44-9-24 for vacating due to invalid sale. | Amy Realty argues §44-9-30/31 bars challenges after decree. | Yes; §44-9-24 permits vacating for invalid tax sale. |
| Whether the corrective deed could cure the fundamental error of selling the wrong lot. | Safety valve defeats the flawed sale; corrective deed cannot fix it. | Corrective deed could relate back and cure defects. | No; corrective deed cannot cure fundamental mislabeling of a lot. |
| Whether notice deficiencies violated due process to permit relief under §44-9-24. | Plaintiffs did not receive required notice; due process violated. | Notice defect not substantial; ordinary diligence could fix. | Yes; notice deficiency supports §44-9-24 relief. |
| Whether §44-9-35 (non-substantial errors) bars vacatur. | Errors were substantial and misleading; §44-9-35 inapplicable. | Misspelling or minor error could be cured by §44-9-35. | No; §44-9-35 did not sanitize the flawed sale. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kildeer Realty v. Brewster Realty Corp., 826 A.2d 961 (R.I. 2003) (bar on challenges after proper notice to foreclose redemption rights)
- Medeiros v. Bankers Trust Co., 38 A.3d 1112 (R.I. 2012) (failure to answer foreclose bars redemption challenge)
- ABAR Associates, a RIGP v. Luna, 870 A.2d 990 (R.I. 2005) (safety valve purposes and redemption integrity)
- Sycamore Properties, LLC v. Tabriz Realty, LLC, 870 A.2d 424 (R.I. 2005) (notice-based safety valve prior to amendment of §44-9-24)
- Murray v. Schillace, 658 A.2d 512 (R.I. 1995) (misspelling not substantial/misleading; ordinary diligence)
- Picerne v. Sylvestre, 113 R.I. 598, 324 A.2d 617 (R.I. 1974) (finality of foreclosure and notice effects)