Sneil, LLC v. Tybe Learning Center, Inc.
2012 Mo. LEXIS 120
| Mo. | 2012Background
- Sneil, LLC purchased a tax lien certificate on 3645 Marietta Drive, Florissant, from a 2006 first offering sale.
- Tybe Learning Center, Inc. owned the property and Regions Bank held a deed of trust on it at the time of sale.
- Sneil mailed notice to Tybe and Union Planters (later Regions) on August 27, 2007, via certified mail; the notice did not state the redemption period.
- Collector deed to Sneil was issued December 6, 2007 and recorded December 18, 2007 after one-year redemption period elapsed.
- Circuit court held the notice failed to inform the recipients of the redemption period and denied Sneil relief; court concluded the notice forfeited Sneil’s interest; Sneil appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 140.405 notice must inform the redemption period | Sneil argues § 140.405 integrates Hobson; no fixed period required | Tybe/Regions contends notice must state the one-year redemption window | No; notice need not state the period, but must inform of right to redeem (timing addressed by §140.340) |
| Timeliness of notice under 90-day requirement | Sneil asserts notice timing was timely under §140.405 and Hobson | Tybe/Regions contend notice was less than 90 days before one-year anniversary | Notice was untimely; 90 days before the one-year anniversary required |
| Effect of due process on notice content | Due process requires minimal notice of right to redeem | Notice suffices if it informs of right to redeem; time frame not required by due process | Due process does not require stating the time frame; however timely notice is required by statute |
| Sufficiency of circuit court findings | Sneil requested extensive findings of fact and law | Circuit court properly decided; some requests omitted | Finding sufficiency adequate for review; no reversible error; judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Harpagon MO, LLC v. Bosch, 370 S.W.3d 579 (Mo. banc 2012) (notice void if 140.405 not followed; forfeiture of property)
- CedarBridge, LLC v. Eason, 293 S.W.3d 462 (Mo.App.2009) (notice must inform time frame to redeem)
- United Asset Mgmt. Trust Co. v. Clark, 332 S.W.3d 159 (Mo.App.2010) (limits of notice content; due process considerations)
- Boston v. Williamson, 807 S.W.2d 216 (Mo.App.1991) (notice and redemption timing considerations)
- Drake Dev. & Constr., LLC v. Jacob Holdings, Inc., 306 S.W.3d 171 (Mo.App.2010) (confirms requirements for first/second offering notices)
- Keylien Corp. v. Johnson, 284 S.W.3d 606 (Mo.App.2009) (discusses timing and content if time is stated in notice)
- Hames v. Bellistri, 300 S.W.3d 235 (Mo.App.2009) (notice requirements and redemption period)