Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Maine; April 29, 1999; Maine; State Supreme Court
George and Janice Anderson are appealing a Superior Court order that vacated a District Court judgment and remanded the case for the entry of judgment in favor of the Town of Pownal, which sought to evict them from properties identified as Lots 44 and 45 due to unpaid taxes. The Town argued it had properly established and foreclosed tax liens on these properties from 1992. The Andersons countered that the Town had a contractual obligation to reconvey the properties to them upon payment and claimed that procedural errors in the tax lien process invalidated the Town's title, thus preventing eviction.
The District Court ruled against the Andersons’ contract claim but found in their favor regarding the Town’s procedural defects, leading to a judgment that denied the Town immediate possession. The Town's appeal to the Superior Court resulted in a reversal of this judgment. The Andersons’ current appeal challenges the Superior Court's decision, particularly regarding the finding that the Town did not properly perfect or foreclose its tax liens.
In reviewing the case, the court emphasized that a forcible entry and detainer action determines immediate possession based on title. The District Court's factual findings will not be overturned unless clearly erroneous, while the interpretation of tax lien statutes is subject to de novo review. At trial, it was established that George Anderson was the sole owner of Lot 45, which had a tax lien against it; he received proper notification regarding overdue taxes but did not redeem the property within the specified timeframe.
The District Court ruled that the lien on Lot 45 was void due to an insufficient property description in the tax lien certificate. However, this ruling was contested. A functional test for property descriptions in lien certificates requires that they allow identification with reasonable certainty. The certificate for Lot 45 included a detailed description referencing MAP 9, PARCEL 15, which was deemed sufficient based on prior case law. Janice and George Anderson did not effectively challenge the description, having stipulated to the Town’s tax map, and Janice's confusion regarding the properties did not undermine the Town's identification of Lot 45. Consequently, the Town complied with statutory procedures and was entitled to judgment in its forcible entry and detainer action for Lot 45.
In regards to Lot 44, the Town claimed Janice Anderson was not a record owner, arguing that the deed naming her and George as joint tenants had not been recorded. However, this argument was not raised in the District Court, where it was accepted that Janice was a joint owner. The Town had relied on the same deed in its complaint, which had been admitted into evidence without dispute over its recording. The District Court's finding of Janice as a record owner stands unchallenged on appeal.
The Andersons argued that the Town failed to meet statutory requirements for Lot 44 by not notifying Janice of the tax lien filing, not listing her on the lien certificate, and asserting that the property description was insufficient.
Attention to statutory requirements is critical for both the Town and the taxpayer in property tax matters. Failure to comply can result in the loss of property for the taxpayer, as established in Fitzgerald v. City of Bangor. Similarly, the Town must strictly adhere to its obligations under the law, as seen in relevant case law. Departures from statutory requirements are only permitted if explicitly allowed by statute.
In this case, the District Court ruled that a tax lien against Janice Anderson was void because the Town did not mail her a copy of the lien certificate for Lot 44, violating the requirements of 36 M.R.S.A. § 942. The Town argued that it only needed to inform George Anderson, a joint tenant, based on 36 M.R.S.A. § 555, which allows a municipality to treat one joint tenant as the sole owner for tax purposes unless otherwise notified. However, this interpretation was incorrect as § 555 pertains only to assessment responsibilities, not to the enforcement of tax liens.
Since the Town had not assessed taxes to Janice Anderson, it was required under § 942 to send her a certified copy of the lien certificate. The statute explicitly mandates communication with the record owner when property taxes have not been assessed to them, which the Town failed to fulfill. Consequently, the District Court properly concluded that the Town was obligated to comply with § 942.
The Town's failure to provide Janice Anderson with the required lien certificate does not invalidate the tax lien if she had actual knowledge of it. According to 36 M.R.S.A. 943, after an 18-month redemption period, a record owner who lacks notice can redeem the property within six months of gaining actual knowledge of the lien. The court noted that Janice had actual knowledge of the lien related to Lot 44, which was sent to George Anderson, implying the Town’s failure to mail a copy to her did not render the lien void. However, the court agreed with the Andersons that the lien was invalid because Janice's name was not listed on the lien certificate. Citing Cary v. Town of Harrington, it established that a valid tax lien must include the record owner’s name. The absence of Janice's name invalidated the lien despite her actual knowledge, as it would not alert a title examiner to her interest in the property. Thus, the purported lien on Lot 44 was deemed void.
The judgment of the Superior Court is vacated concerning Lot 44 and affirmed regarding Lot 45. The case is remanded to the Superior Court for further proceedings in the District Court, where a forcible entry and detainer will be entered in favor of the Town of Pownal for Lot 45, and a judgment for Lot 44 will be entered in favor of George and Janice Anderson. The District Court clarified its ruling on Lot 45 after the judgment, indicating it could not determine the specific ownership of portions of Lots 44 and 45 by George and Janice Anderson. The description of Lot 44 in the lien certificate was deemed sufficiently clear, referencing established case law. The record shows no evidence that Janice Anderson attempted to redeem Lot 44 within the designated redemption period. The Town did not claim that it had perfected its lien against George for Lot 44 on appeal, hence the court did not address whether a defect affecting one joint owner could permit action against another properly notified owner. The text references previous cases regarding the implications of tax liens on jointly owned properties.
