324 So.3d 688
La. Ct. App.2021Background
- Side By Side Redevelopment, Inc. (SBS) originally bought the property (tax bill no. 614348510) in 2003/2004 and later became delinquent on ad valorem taxes for 2012–2014.
- Archon (contracted by the Orleans Parish Tax Collector) mailed pre-sale notice to SBS (Dec. 19, 2014); Archon ran the March 10, 2015 tax sale.
- Adam Salup purchased tax-sale title at the March 10, 2015 sale; the tax-sale certificate was recorded Apr. 29, 2015, starting a three-year redemptive period that expired Apr. 29, 2018.
- Archon mailed post-sale notice to SBS on June 24, 2015 advising of the sale and redemption rights; SBS did not redeem.
- SBS filed to annul/quiet title in Aug. 2016 (while the redemptive period remained open). Salup obtained quitclaims from prior heirs, moved for summary judgment to confirm ownership, and the district court granted judgment (Sept. 17, 2020) declaring Salup sole owner.
- On de novo review the Fourth Circuit affirmed: Salup’s tax sale was valid, SBS was duly notified for redemptive purposes, statutory defects alleged by SBS were not fatal, and the court’s reformation of the property description was appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (SBS) | Defendant's Argument (Salup) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of tax sale / due process (was SBS "duly notified" so that title transferred after redemptive period) | Pre- and post-sale notices were defective; SBS lacked actual notice and thus the sale is annulable (redemption nullity). | Salup produced the recorded tax-sale certificate and Archon affidavit showing pre- and post-sale notices sent to SBS’s registered agent; statutory scheme and case law require only an effort meeting due-process standards, not actual notice. | Salup entitled to judgment. Tax certificate is prima facie regular; Archon’s post-sale notice satisfied due-process/duly-notified standard; SBS failed to raise a genuine factual dispute. |
| Failure to state amount of taxes in notice (La. R.S. 47:2156) | Post-sale notice is fatally deficient because it did not state the tax amount and therefore failed statutory requirements. | Statute’s notice-language is directory/safe-harbor; omission of amount is not fatal where notice otherwise informs and identifies the property and redemption mechanics. | Held: Statute is directory; omission of amount did not invalidate notice. |
| Reformation of property description in final judgment | Court erred by reforming tax-certificate description sua sponte and without reasons; this affects title certainty. | Accurate legal description in final judgments is required by La. C.C.P. art. 1919; the tax-certificate description was imprecise and the court properly set a particularized description. | Held: Reformation appropriate. Final judgment must provide particularized legal description; district court did not err. |
| Whether Salup purchased a different/overlapping parcel (discrepancies between tax certificates) | Differences/omissions in the two tax-sale certificates show different or overlapping properties; sale to Salup therefore does not convey same property SBS had. | Both certificates identify the same tax-bill number, square and lot dimensions; minor wording omissions are common and do not show different parcels. | Held: Certificates refer to the same property; discrepancies were immaterial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stow-Serge v. Side by Side Redevelopment, Inc., 302 So.3d 71 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2020) (post-sale notice by Archon satisfied due-process/duly-notified standard and supported quiet-title judgment)
- Cent. Properties v. Fairway Gardenhomes, LLC, 225 So.3d 441 (La. 2017) (explains tax-sale title versus ownership after redemptive period and required notice scheme)
- Alpha Capital US Bank v. White, 268 So.3d 1124 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2018) (tax-sale nullities are relative and curable)
- Hooper v. Hero Lands Co., 216 So.3d 965 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2016) (final judgments affecting immovables must include particularized legal descriptions)
- Marks v. New Orleans Police Dep’t, 943 So.2d 1028 (La. 2006) (distinguishing directory vs. mandatory statutory language and when failure to comply is fatal)