Saffo v. Foxworthy, Inc., 286 Ga. 284

687 S.E.2d 463 (2009) · Supreme Court of Georgia · November 23, 2009 · No. S09A0988

Summary

The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed dismissal of delinquent taxpayers’ action challenging a tax sale and resulting tax deed because they had not paid or tendered the statutory redemption amount required by OCGA § 48-4-47. The court held that a subsequent foreclosure notice supplied sufficient notice and that the payment-or-tender requirement did not violate due process. The court also concluded that alleged defects in the sheriff’s conduct of the tax sale supported a potential damages action against the sheriff rather than invalidation of the tax deed against the purchaser.

Holdings

  1. After proper foreclosure-of-redemption notice and passage of the barment date, OCGA § 48-4-47(a) bars both filing and maintaining an action to set aside or invalidate the tax deed unless the plaintiff first pays or tenders the full redemption amount.
  2. The court did not need to decide whether the first notice was defective because the later notice independently satisfied the statutory notice requirement and barred continuation of the action.
  3. OCGA § 48-4-47's payment-or-tender requirement does not violate federal or Georgia due process guarantees, either facially or as applied to the Saffos.
  4. Defects in the Sheriff's compliance with statutory tax-sale notice and advertising requirements may support a damages action against the Sheriff but do not invalidate the tax sale or deed as against a bona fide purchaser.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether OCGA § 48-4-47 barred the Saffos' action challenging the validity of the tax sale and resulting tax deed because they had not paid or tendered the redemption amount.
  2. Whether the second exception to OCGA § 48-4-47's payment-or-tender requirement applied because the first foreclosure notice allegedly failed to provide timely notice.
  3. Whether OCGA § 48-4-47's payment-or-tender requirement violated the Saffos' constitutional right to due process.
  4. Whether alleged defects in the Sheriff's implementation of the tax-sale process could invalidate the tax sale or deed as against the bona fide purchaser.

Disposition

affirmed

Cases Cited (9)

  • Mark Turner Properties, Inc. v. Evans, 274 Ga. 547, 550, 554 S.E.2d 492 (2001)(followed)
  • Dixon v. Conway, 262 Ga. 709, 709, 425 S.E.2d 651 (1993)(followed)
  • Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220, 223, 226, 126 S. Ct. 1708, 164 L. Ed. 2d 415 (2006)(followed)
  • Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 313-14, 70 S. Ct. 652, 94 L. Ed. 865 (1950)(followed)
  • Haden v. Liberty Co., 183 Ga. 209, 211, 188 S.E. 29 (1936)(followed)
  • GE Capital Mortgage Svcs., Inc. v. Clack, 271 Ga. 82, 83, 515 S.E.2d 619 (1999)(followed)
  • Sizemore v. Brown, 179 Ga. App. 594, 347 S.E.2d 345 (1986)(followed)
  • Davis v. Harpagon Co., 281 Ga. 250, 252, 637 S.E.2d 1 (2006)(followed)
  • Wallace v. President Street, L.P., 263 Ga. 239, 240, 430 S.E.2d 1 (1993)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…