Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Sale Notice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bank urges reversal of summary judgment over tax‑sale notice; respondent cites tax‑sale extinguishment
Summary
US Bank Trust argued the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment to respondents because an interested party was not given constitutionally sufficient notice of a tax sale; respondents said the 2012 tax sale extinguished prior interests and that reconveyances and title‑search activity foreclose relief.
Layton Cecil, arguing for US Bank Trust as trustee, asked the Intermediate Court of Appeals to review a Berkeley County summary‑judgment order and to set aside a tax‑sale deed because petitioner allegedly did not receive sufficient notice of the tax sale and of opportunity to redeem. Cecil told the court that prior chain‑of‑title assignments established petitioner as an interested party and that publication plus returned mail was inadequate notice in cases where actual notice was feasible; he cited case law (Mennonite and Roe v. Duke) and told the court the reconveyance back to the prior owner looked like an attempt to avoid the consequences of insufficient notice.
Eric Black, representing Duncan Holmes LLC, urged affirmance, saying the 2012 tax sale extinguished earlier liens and that no timely challenge had been brought; he argued there was no legal authority reinstating an extinguished lien simply because a later reconveyance occurred. The judges pressed counsel on the practical effect of title searches and whether reconveyances functionally operated as a redemption or as conveyance. The court submitted the matter after argument; no immediate decision was rendered.
