Preview:

HEADNOTE Quillens v. Parker, No. 1592, September Term, 2005 Tax Sales - Multiple parcels comprising single business site, sold to separate parties for real estate taxes. In consolidated cases, owner opposes foreclosures by tax sale certificate holders of rights of redemption. In cases where appeals were noted from orders fixing

redemption amounts, but before foreclosures of the rights of redemption, held: appeals premature.

Where municipality bought in certain parcels at prior tax sale, but did not foreclose right of redemption within two year statutory time limit, held: tax lien continued in effect, and, at

later tax sale, redemption price at prior sale properly brought forward and included in current redemption price. Where mortgage on site is in process of foreclosure at same time as rights of redemption from tax sales are in process of foreclosure on parcels comprising site, held: owner not entitled

to injunction (1) restraining foreclosure of rights of redemption and (2) requiring certificate holders to submit, as if unsecured creditors, claims for unpaid taxes (the redemption amounts) in the mortgage foreclosure proceeding.

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1592 September Term, 2005

LEEFEN QUILLENS et al. v. KATHLEEN V. PARKER et al.

Eyler, Deborah S. Barbera Rodowsky, Lawrence F. (retired, specially assigned), JJ. Opinion by Rodowsky, J. Filed: September 29, 2006

In the northeast quadrant of West North Avenue and McCulloh Street in Baltimore City is a carwash. to this appeal, the owner of the During the times relevant carwash property was the

appellant, Leefen Quillens (Mr. Quillens). As security for a loan, he executed a deed of trust on the carwash site, the rights under which are held by the other appellant, Rapid Funding Corporation (Rapid Funding). Rapid Funding, on September 25, 2003, instituted

foreclosure, under a power of sale, in Case No. 24-03-003193 in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. The lender's agent made

affidavit that the debt was at least $1 million.

At a public sale

held on January 30, 2004, Rapid Funding bought in for $650,000. The contest before us arises because Mr. Quillens also failed to pay real property taxes. The appellees are the holders of tax

sale certificates on various parcels or lots, as described in the property assessment accounts, that are within the area encumbered by the deed of trust.1 Block 3423. All of the lots are in Ward 13, Section 8,

When appellees brought actions in the Circuit Court

for Baltimore City to foreclose the rights of redemption as to the various tax account lots, appellants opposed foreclosure on

The record in the mortgage foreclosure action contains a copy of the deed of trust. Its terms state that the description of the property encumbered thereby is set forth in an Exhibit A to that instrument. Exhibit A is omitted from the copy of the deed of trust filed in the foreclosure action. No party has questioned the premise that all of the tax account lots at issue here are included in the portion of Block 3423 that was encumbered by the deed of trust.

1

jurisdictional grounds.

Aggrieved by the rejection of their

arguments, appellants brought this appeal. There are three appellee interests, Kathleen V. Parker (Ms. Parker), Geuk Lee and Chun Ja Lee (the Lees), and the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore (the City). Ms. Parker brought Action

No. 24-C-03-004785 on June 30, 2003, in order to foreclose the right of redemption in Lots 13 through 16, respectively, known as 2303, 2305, 2307, and 2309 McCulloh Street. Ms. Parker had

acquired certificates for each of these lots at a tax sale on May 13, 2002. On March 20, 2000, the Lees brought Action No. 24-C-00-

001372 to foreclose the right of redemption in Lot 11A, known as 1130 West North Avenue. The certificate of sale for 1130 West The By

North Avenue describes the "Lot Size" as "improvement only." Lees acquired their certificate at a tax sale on May 17, 1999.2

Civil Action No. 24-C-03-003229, filed May 6, 2003, the City sought to foreclose the right of redemption in Lot 12, known as 2301 McCulloh Street. The City had bought in that property at a tax By Action No. 24-C-03-003142, filed May 2,

sale on May 14, 2001.

2003, the City sought to foreclose the right of redemption in Lot

The land for the parcel having a street address of 1130-1136 West North Avenue is assessed under an account for Ward 13, Section 8, Block 3423, Lot 9. The City bought in the certificate for Lot 9 at a tax sale on September 15, 2004. If there was any action to foreclose a right of redemption with respect to the property described in the tax account for Lot 9, it is not an action that was consolidated as part of this appeal. -2-

2

17, known as 2311 McCulloh Street.

The City had bought in that

property at the tax sale of May 14, 2001. The four above-described tax cases were consolidated with and into Rapid Funding's action to foreclose the deed of trust, and the orders for this appeal have caused to be brought up to this Court the original records in all five consolidated actions. Only in the two actions by the City had the circuit court entered an order foreclosing the right of redemption prior to the noting of these appeals. Additional facts will be stated in the discussion of the respective questions presented, which we have reordered and set forth below. 1. "Did the lower court err in refusing to consider that challenge to the court's jurisdiction which is based on the fact that, because one of the certificates fails to describe any conveyable parcel of real property, there is no jurisdiction and no remedy available under Title 14, Subtitle 8 of the Tax-Property Article?" 2. "Did the lower court err in finding valid those certificates, the redemption price of which included amounts for which the City had earlier purchased certificates not used, within the statutorily prescribed time frame, in a foreclosure proceeding?" 3. "Did the lower court err in refusing to require that the holders of certificates present their claims against the proceeds of sale in the mortgage foreclosure case?" 4. "Did the lower court err in entering judgments foreclosing rights of redemption in two cases after appellants had filed their notice of appeal?"

-3-

Overview By virtue of Maryland Code (1986, 2001 Repl. Vol., 2005 Cum. Supp.),

Download Quillens v. Parker.pdf

Maryland Law