281 So.3d 92
Miss. Ct. App.2019Background
- Jane Drew owned a Diamondhead residence and failed to pay ad valorem taxes for 2007–2009; the property was sold at tax sales in 2008, 2009, and 2010.
- The chancery clerk issued tax deeds to purchasers (U.S. Bank and others); those purchasers later conveyed interests to Rebuild America, Inc. (Rebuild).
- In 2010 Drew signed an agreement with Rebuild that included a broad waiver of challenges to tax-sale defects; Rebuild later sued to quiet title (Drew I).
- In Drew I the chancery court held the 2008 tax sale void for failure to give statutorily required notice and set aside the sale; that judgment became final.
- After the 2008 sale was set aside, Drew sued to set aside the 2009 and 2010 tax sales (Drew II). The chancery court granted summary judgment to Drew, holding both later sales were also void for lack of statutory notice and rejecting Rebuild’s waiver argument.
- On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed: each tax sale was void ab initio for failure to comply with notice statutes, Drew remained record owner entitled to notice, and the 2010 waiver was unenforceable/collaterally estopped by Drew I.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Drew waived the right to challenge tax-sales via the 2010 agreement | Drew: waiver unenforceable because Rebuild had no title to convey and court already rejected waiver in Drew I | Rebuild: Drew waived defects by contract language releasing claims | Held: Drew I resolved enforceability; collateral estoppel prevents relitigation — waiver unenforceable |
| Whether the 2009 tax sale was void for lack of statutory notice | Drew: 2009 sale notice requirements were not met; she remained record owner because 2008 sale was void | Rebuild: Drew was not record owner 180 days before redemption expiration; thus not entitled to notice | Held: A sale void for notice is void ab initio; 2008 sale had no legal effect so Drew was record owner and 2009 sale void for lack of notice |
| Whether the 2010 tax sale was void for lack of statutory notice | Drew: clerk failed to provide the required personal/mail/publication notice to her | Rebuild: later deeds to purchasers changed record ownership, so Drew not entitled to notice | Held: Because prior sales were void ab initio and clerk failed to give required notice for 2010 sale, the 2010 sale was also void ab initio |
| Standard for effect of clerk’s failure to comply with notice statutes | Drew: strict compliance required; failure renders sale void with no legal effect | Rebuild: (implicitly) defects do not necessarily eliminate later record changes | Held: Statutory notice must be strictly followed; failure renders sale void ab initio and the sale has no legal effect |
Key Cases Cited
- SASS Muni-V LLC v. DeSoto Cty., 170 So. 3d 441 (Miss. 2015) (failure to give statutorily required notice renders tax sale void)
- Reed v. Florimonte, 987 So. 2d 967 (Miss. 2008) (statutes forfeiting land for delinquent taxes construed strictly in favor of landowners)
- Gibson v. Williams, Williams & Montgomery P.A., 186 So. 3d 836 (Miss. 2016) (elements of collateral estoppel/issue preclusion)
- Wells Fargo Advisors LLC v. Runnels, 126 So. 3d 137 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (explaining legal effect of transactions declared void ab initio)
- McCarty v. Wood, 249 So. 3d 425 (Miss. Ct. App. 2018) (discussion of collateral estoppel principles)