ONE-PIE INVESTMENTS, LLC v. Jackson
43 A.3d 911
Del.2012Background
- Jackson purchased the property at 700 West 32nd Street and financed with multiple mortgages; a City of Wilmington writ of monition and venditioni exponas led to a sheriff’s sale on November 9, 2010 where One-Pie Investments, LLC bid $25,000; sale confirmation occurred on December 27, 2010; Jackson redeemed by paying $9,830.79 to the Sheriff on February 25, 2011; from the sale proceeds the Sheriff disbursed $25,000 to One-Pie, $5,000 as a 20% premium, $3,378.79 to the City, and $1,452 to the Sheriff; One-Pie petitioned for a tax deed on March 3, 2011; the Superior Court denied the petition and confirmed the Commissioner’s denial; One-Pie appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jackson properly redeemed under §4-148 | One-Pie argues redemption not proper because funds did not go directly to the bidder | Jackson followed Sheriff's instructions and the bidder was made whole | Redemption proper; bidder is made whole under the ordinance |
| Whether One-Pie had standing | One-Pie asserts a right to a tax deed and standing to pursue it | Court treated the issue as merits-based and found redemption moot for standing | Standing not necessary to disturb redemption ruling; petition denied on merits |
| Whether Sheriff payments validate redemption | Payments via Sheriff were not the statutory method | Redemption is satisfied by returning the purchase price plus twenty percent; conduit is acceptable | Valid; payments via Sheriff are permissible conduit for redemption |
Key Cases Cited
- Green v. Sussex County, 668 A.2d 770 (Del. Super. Ct. 1995) (statutory construction principles applied to convey rational interpretation)
- LeVan v. Independence Mall, Inc., 940 A.2d 929 (Del. 2007) (interpretation of statutory language; legislative acquiescence)
- PHL Variable Ins. Co. v. Price Dawe 2006 Ins. Trust, ex rel. Christiana Bank and Trust Co., 28 A.3d 1059 (Del. 2011) (statutory construction and interpretation in Delaware)
- Burge v. Fidelity Bond & Mortg. Co., 648 A.2d 414 (Del. 1994) (equitable powers over court processes and remedies)