Moore v. Marathon Asset Mgmt., LLC


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2006-CA-01405-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 01-29-2008
Opinion Author: CHANDLER, J.
Holding: Reversed and Rendered

Additional Case Information: Topic: Real property - Tax sale - Notice of expiration of time for redemption - Section 27-43-1 - Section 27-43-3 - Standing
Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ.
Procedural History: Bench Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - REAL PROPERTY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 05-09-2006
Appealed from: CHANCERY COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HINDS COUNTY
Judge: William H. Singletary
Disposition: FINAL JUDGMENT ENTERED DECLARING MARATHON ASSET MANAGEMENT TO BE THE FEE SIMPLE TITLE HOLDER OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
Case Number: G-2004-1540(S-2)

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: NAPOLEAN MOORE




PAUL E. ROGERS



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief

  • Appellee: MARATHON ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC HUNTER FARISS CRISLER  

    Synopsis provided by:

    If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals
    hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office.

    Topic: Real property - Tax sale - Notice of expiration of time for redemption - Section 27-43-1 - Section 27-43-3 - Standing

    Summary of the Facts: Edward Chapman failed to pay the ad valorem taxes owed on his property for the year 2000. Heartwood 88 bought the disputed property at a tax sale on August 27, 2001. Chapman had two years to redeem the property, or the tax sale would be final and title would vest in the purchaser at the tax sale. As of 180 days before the expiration of the period of redemption, Chapman was the owner of record. On May 27, 2003, the chancery clerk sent notice to Chapman via certified mail of the upcoming expiration of the redemption period, but it was returned unclaimed. On July 15, 2003, the sheriff also visited the property to personally deliver notice to Chapman, but he did not locate him. At the time the sheriff attempted to deliver notice to Chapman, the property was actually owned by Napolean Moore. At a foreclosure sale on June 13, 2003, only seventy-six days prior to the expiration of the equity of redemption, Moore paid $27,330.40 for the property that had been foreclosed on by Lasalle Bank National Association, a creditor of Chapman’s. Prior to making the purchase at the foreclosure sale, Moore did not conduct a title search on the property. Therefore, he did not learn about the tax sale or the period of redemption set to expire on August 27, 2003. Moore never learned of the tax sale until some time in 2004. Thereafter, he recorded his deed to the property on August 31, 2004, and filed suit to quiet title to the property or to receive repayment of the amount spent improving the property. The chancery court found that the chancery clerk had followed proper procedures and refused to set aside the tax sale purchase by Marathon’s predecessor in interest, Heartwood 88, Inc. Moore appeals.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Moore argues that the clerk did not file the necessary affidavits detailing the steps she took to find the owner; therefore, the chancery court should have declared the tax sale to be void. Section 27-43-1 provides that the chancery clerk must give notice of the pending expiration of the time for redemption to the owner of record as of 180 days prior to the expiration. Section 27-43-3 requires the chancery clerk to give notice by certified mail, personal service via the sheriff, and publication in an appropriate newspaper. If notice by certified mail and personal service are ineffective, section 27-43-3 lists additional steps that the clerk must follow. Any deviation from the statutorily mandated procedure renders the sale void. There is nothing in the record to suggest that the chancery clerk took any steps beyond mailing notice and sending the sheriff the property to deliver notice. According to section 27-43-3, the clerk was also required to publish notice in the newspaper. Because the certified mail was returned unclaimed and the sheriff did not find the owner, the clerk was required to conduct additional search and inquiry and file two affidavits detailing her efforts to locate the owner. From the record, it does not appear that the clerk filed any such affidavits. Upon foreclosure, Chapman lost title to the property, and once the property was sold he lost his only remaining interest in the property, the right to redeem it prior to sale. While Chapman was the owner of record 180 days before the expiration of the redemption period, he no longer held title to the property nor any interest in the property when the redemption period expired. Moore was the one who purchased the disputed property at the foreclosure sale. As a purchaser at a foreclosure sale, Moore stepped into the shoes of the mortgagee, LaSalle Bank. This gave Moore an interest in the property because, upon purchasing it at foreclosure, he took title to the property. This was sufficient to give him standing to assert his claims at trial. Thus, the chancery court’s judgment is reversed and judgment is rendered declaring the tax sale to Heartwood and the subsequent transfer of title to Marathon void.


    Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court