Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves a dispute over the right of redemption following a tax sale. The Appellant, who acquired quitclaim deeds from the record title holders, sought to redeem the property from Diana Smith Evans, the tax deed purchaser. In previous litigation, the court found the quitclaim deeds did not convey the right to redeem and deemed Appellant's tender insufficient, yet concluded the right to redemption was not foreclosed. In a subsequent action, the Appellant argued the right to redeem still existed, despite Evans's claims of prescriptive title due to her tax payments. The trial court ruled that Evans's title had ripened by prescription, but the higher court reversed this, stating Ms. Evans did not possess the property nor engage in actions constituting adverse possession. The Appellant's tender requirement was waived as Evans failed to respond to communications. The redemption price was recalculated under a 1996 amendment to the statute, which was found constitutional. Although Appellant's deposit was insufficient, the lack of prescriptive title and the lawsuit's suspension of prescription allowed the Appellant to retain the right to redeem. The judgment was partially affirmed and partially reversed, with directions for further proceedings, and all Justices concurred.
Legal Issues Addressed
Calculation of Redemption Pricesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The trial court correctly calculated the redemption price, including a 20% annual premium, based on the 1996 amendment to the statute.
Reasoning: The Appellant argued for a 10% premium based on an earlier version of the statute; however, the trial court's application of the 20% premium from the 1996 amendment was upheld as not being retroactively unconstitutional.
Effect of Lawsuit on Prescriptionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The filing of the lawsuit suspended the running of prescription, allowing the Appellant to pursue redemption despite not fully paying the calculated redemption price.
Reasoning: The running of prescription was effectively suspended by the lawsuit.
Prescriptive Title and Adverse Possessionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Ms. Evans did not establish prescriptive title as she did not occupy the property or demonstrate adverse possession, only having paid a portion of the taxes.
Reasoning: Payments alone do not suffice to establish prescriptive title, regardless of the duration or assertions of ownership.
Right of Redemption in Tax Salesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Appellant retains the right to redeem the property despite previous attempts, as the prescriptive title was not established by Ms. Evans due to the lack of adverse possession.
Reasoning: The Appellant retains the right to redeem the property, but must tender the owed amount before initiating a redemption action.
Tender Requirements for Redemptionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Ms. Evans waived the tender requirements by failing to respond to Appellant’s communication regarding the redemption amount, making a formal tender unnecessary.
Reasoning: The requirement for tender can be waived if the payee, through their actions or statements, indicates they would refuse acceptance of the payment.