223 A.3d 768
R.I.2020Background
- Crown Realty owned 2 Tag Drive (used as a towing/auto-storage garage); Conley purchased the property at a Town tax sale on May 18, 2017.
- Conley filed a petition to foreclose the right of redemption on June 6, 2018 after no one redeemed.
- Conley served a citation on Crown (received July 6, 2018) informing interested parties they had 20 days to answer; Crown did not answer within 20 days.
- Conley moved for a decree pro confesso; on August 9 Conley’s paralegal emailed a ‘‘redemption statement’’ saying interest was good through August 18, 2018.
- Crown paid some 2017 taxes to the Town on August 10, obtained a cashier’s check for the full redemption amount on August 16, and tendered it on August 20 (after the August 18 date). Crown filed a response on August 28.
- The Superior Court held Crown in default and entered a decree forever barring its right of redemption; Crown appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Conley) | Defendant's Argument (Crown) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Fontaine’s statutory deadline bars Crown’s redemption for failing to answer within 20 days | Fontaine/statute requires timely answer; default bars redemption | Fontaine is inapplicable or too "draconian" because of later communications | Fontaine applies; Crown defaulted under the statute and redemption was barred |
| Whether the Aug. 9 redemption statement created an implied-in-fact contract permitting late redemption | No contract; statutory scheme controls and precludes grafting contract rights | The redemption statement was an offer; tender two days late was reasonable | No implied-in-fact contract: no mutual agreement and statutory process governs |
| Whether Conley’s alleged misrepresentation estops him from seeking decree pro confesso | No estoppel; argument lacks merit and statute controls | Conley intentionally/negligently misled Crown via redemption statement | Estoppel claim was without merit and not sustained |
| Whether excusable neglect or good cause excuses Crown’s late answer | No good cause shown; statute’s deadline is controlling | Excusable neglect (e.g., misleading statement, family death) justified relief | No excusable neglect sufficient to avoid default; deadline enforcement affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Conley v. Fontaine, 138 A.3d 756 (R.I. 2016) (controls interpretation of tax-sale redemption deadlines and consequences of failing to file a timely answer)
- Izzo v. Victor Realty, 132 A.3d 680 (R.I. 2016) (explaining petition and notice requirements under the tax-sale statute)
- Johnson v. QBAR Associates, 78 A.3d 48 (R.I. 2013) (describing filing an answer with an offer to redeem on or before the return day)
- Cote v. Aiello, 148 A.3d 537 (R.I. 2016) (standards for reviewing implied-in-fact contract findings)
- Bailey v. West, 249 A.2d 414 (R.I. 1969) (absence of mutual agreement where communications involve third parties)
- Shine v. Moreau, 119 A.3d 1 (R.I. 2015) (statutory interpretation: plain and ordinary meaning)