Preview:

FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE # 9 FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

The Opinions handed down on the 22nd day of February, 2006 , are as follows:

BY KNOLL, J.:

2005-C -0846

MICHAEL D. HAMILTON v . ROYAL INTERNATIONAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION AND ELMER B. LITCHFIELD, SHERIFF AND TAX COLLECTOR OF THE CITY OF BATON ROUGE (Parish of E. Baton Rouge) For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the court of appeal is reversed and set aside. The district court judgment dismissing the suit, with prejudice, is reinstated. REVERSED. Retired Judge Robert Klees assigned as Associate Justice sitting for Associate Justice Chet D. Traylor, recused. KNOLL, J., additionally concurs with reasons. JOHNSON, J., dissents. ad hoc,

02/22/2006 SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 05-C-846 MICHAEL D. HAMILTON VERSUS ROYAL INTERNATIONAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION and ELMER B. LITCHFIELD, SHERIFF and TAX COLLECTOR of the CITY OF BATON ROUGE ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT, PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE KNOLL, Justice* This case concerns whether a tax sale for delinquent taxes on immovable property should be annulled for failure of the Sheriff, as Ex Officio Tax Collector, to send a notice to the taxpayer informing him, inter alia, of the manner in which the property may be redeemed, as mandated by La. Rev. Stat. 47:2180 A(1)(b). While the tax sale was properly noticed and executed, the Legislature subsequently amended the law before the three year peremptive period had ended for plaintiff, Michael D. Hamilton, to redeem his property. This change in the law calls into question the validity of the tax sale. The trial court found the tax sale valid. The court of appeal reversed. For the following reasons we reverse the court of appeal, finding the failure to send plaintiff the post-tax sale notice mandated by La. Rev. Stat. 47:2180 A(1)(b) after the properly noticed tax sale and execution thereof does not violate due process, as he was afforded an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner before the tax sale and further, neither does the statute require annulling the tax sale as a penalty for failing to send such a notice.

Retired Judge Robert Klees assigned as Associate Justice ad hoc, sitting for Associate Justice Chet D. Traylor, recused.

*

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiff, Michael D. Hamilton, owned a residence in Baton Rouge, Louisiana that he had inherited from his father and lived in all of his life.1 A tax notice was sent to him for 1994 city/parish ad valorem taxes on the property, which he failed to pay. In April 1995, a notice of tax delinquency was sent to him by certified mail. Mr. Hamilton signed a return receipt indicating receipt of the notice. This notice advised plaintiff that if the delinquent taxes were not paid within twenty days from the date of the notice, the sheriff and tax collector would seize, advertise and sell sufficient property to pay the taxes together with all interest, penalties and costs. The taxes remained unpaid, and the property was advertised for sale. On June 12, 1995, the property was sold at a tax sale to Royal International Petroleum Corporation (RIPCO) for $71.68, consisting of $27.09 in unpaid taxes, interest of $1.59 and costs of $43.00. The sheriff executed a tax deed in RIPCO's name, which was recorded on June 30, 1995. The record shows RIPCO paid the ad valorem taxes assessed for this property for the years of 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998 and 1999. During the three year peremptive period Mr. Hamilton could redeem his property, the Legislature changed the law to require notice during this period to inform the property owner of the manner in which the property could be redeemed. Prior to this change in the law, the tax collector was not constitutionally or legislatively required to send this post-tax sale notice. At the time of the tax sale, La. Rev. Stat. 47:2180 provided, in relevant part:

Download 2005-C-0846 MICHAEL D. HAMILTON v. ROYAL INTERNATIONAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION AND

Louisiana Law