This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Plaintiff-Appellant and his ex-wife jointly owned a property in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Following their divorce, property taxes became delinquent, leading to notices of tax sale being issued by the Property Tax Division (PTD). Despite partial payments and agreements to settle the taxes, the Plaintiff failed to pay the full amount, resulting in the property being sold at a public auction. The Plaintiff alleged inadequate notice and sought to set aside the tax deed, claiming a deprivation of property worth $800,000 (paras 2-12).
Procedural History
- District Court of Bernalillo County: The court dismissed the Plaintiff's complaint with prejudice, granting summary judgments in favor of the Defendants, including the PTD, Bernalillo County Treasurer's Office (BCTO), and W & P Real Estate, Inc. (paras 1, 12).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that the tax sale was invalid due to prior payment of taxes, lack of proper notice under statutory and constitutional requirements, and constructive fraud by the BCTO. He claimed he was misled by notices and verbal assurances regarding payment deadlines (paras 10-11, 13, 31-32).
- Defendants-Appellees: Asserted that the Plaintiff failed to pay the full amount of taxes as required, that statutory and constitutional notice requirements were met, and that constructive fraud was not a valid ground for setting aside the tax deed. They also argued that the Plaintiff had actual knowledge of the tax sale (paras 13-14, 17-18, 31-32).
Legal Issues
- Was the tax sale invalid due to prior payment of delinquent taxes?
- Did the PTD provide adequate statutory and constitutional notice of the tax sale?
- Did the BCTO's actions constitute constructive fraud, and if so, did it affect the validity of the tax sale?
- Was the PTD entitled to summary judgment based on collateral estoppel?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's summary judgments in favor of the Defendants (para 39).
Reasons
Per A. Joseph Alarid J. (Sutin and Kennedy JJ. concurring):
Prior Payment: The Plaintiff's claim of prior payment was unsupported by evidence. The $3,922.02 payment in 1995 was only a partial payment under an installment agreement, and no evidence of subsequent payments was provided. The Plaintiff's subjective belief that his taxes were current was insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact (paras 14-16).
Statutory Notice: The PTD complied with statutory notice requirements by sending a certified mail notice to the Plaintiff's correct address. The return of the notice as "unclaimed" did not invalidate the sale under the 1990 version of Section 7-38-66(D) (paras 17-21).
Constitutional Notice: The PTD's efforts to notify the Plaintiff were deemed reasonably calculated to apprise him of the tax sale. The Plaintiff's failure to accept delivery of the certified mail notice did not render the notice constitutionally inadequate. The Court rejected a per se rule that notice to one joint tenant suffices for all (paras 22-30).
Constructive Fraud: The BCTO's reference to a 1998 tax sale and alleged verbal assurances did not constitute grounds to set aside the tax deed. Constructive fraud is not a valid basis for invalidating a tax sale under the Property Tax Code, and the BCTO is immune from damages claims under the Tort Claims Act. The PTD's subsequent notice satisfied due process requirements (paras 31-36).
Collateral Estoppel: The PTD was entitled to summary judgment based on collateral estoppel, as the Plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the adequacy of notice in prior motions for summary judgment by other Defendants (paras 37-38).