Brown County hears update on 102‑parcel tax‑foreclosure process from outside counsel

Lucas Heinen, a Brown County commissioner, invited outside counsel Michelle Brunwald of the Wichita law firm Clenda Osterman to brief the commission on the county’s delinquent tax‑sale work.

Brunwald said her office currently shows about 102 parcels eligible for tax foreclosure and described the firm’s process: prepare a “skeleton petition” listing all parties on the tax rolls, file the petition and begin service of process, send a cleaned master list to a title company to assemble title work, and then proceed through publication and a post‑judgment sale. She said the title company already lined up for this matter is Security First, which the firm uses to speed turnaround.

“The number 1 priority is to get taxpayers to pay the taxes, pay the fees, and get out of tax sale,” Brunwald said, describing how some redemptions typically occur after the first round of service of process. She estimated, absent complicating federal liens or other issues, a typical calendar of roughly 12–15 months to complete a case of this size and said she expects the county’s work to be finished in calendar year 2026 if title work proceeds promptly.

Brunwald explained what buyers at a tax sale can and cannot expect: purchasers pay the highest bid plus a deed recording fee and, where a court order authorizes it, reasonable court processing costs. She warned prospective buyers that tax‑sale purchases are “buyer beware,” that many liens may survive if they arise after the judgment or were not properly served, and that tax‑sale deeds are not a warranty deed.

Commissioners asked what tax years the list covers; Brunwald said her practice is to include 2021 and older for homestead properties (with separate eligibility windows possible for commercial, vacant or dilapidated parcels) and offered to share parcel selection criteria she provides to treasurers. She said the largest timeline variable is receiving title work from the title company, after which statutory waiting periods largely set the schedule.

Commissioners asked whether the county’s in‑house tax sale would conflict with an outside firm’s sale. Brunwald said overlapping proceedings are not uncommon and do not inherently create legal problems if the parcels do not overlap. Commissioners also asked about disbursement of excess proceeds; Brunwald said the court handles excess‑proceeds distribution by motion and order, and third parties or owners file to claim those funds.

Brunwald offered to send periodic status emails and to provide a quarterly update to the commission; commissioners requested that schedule. She noted the firm is paid on a per‑parcel basis and is therefore incentivized to move cases forward to conclusion. The commission agreed to request regular updates and to invite county counsel to a future meeting to discuss remaining questions about the county’s in‑house process.

The commission did not take any formal action during the briefing.