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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
- 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.
- 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.
- Whether OCGA § 48-4-47's payment-or-tender requirement violated the Saffos' constitutional right to due process.
- 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 PDFLoading document…