Durham v. United Companies Financial Corp.

503 S.E.2d 465, 331 S.C. 600, 1998 S.C. LEXIS 83
CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina
DecidedJuly 13, 1998
Docket24813
StatusPublished
Cited by26 cases

This text of 503 S.E.2d 465 (Durham v. United Companies Financial Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Durham v. United Companies Financial Corp., 503 S.E.2d 465, 331 S.C. 600, 1998 S.C. LEXIS 83 (S.C. 1998).

Opinion

BURNETT, Justice:

This Court granted a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals holding the 30-day notice period in S.C.Code Ann. § 12-49-300 (Supp.1997) must be given before the end of the redemption period. Durham v. United Companies Financial Corp., 326 S.C. 403, 483 S.E.2d 786 (Ct.App.1997). We reverse.

FACTS

In 1988, respondent Carl M. Durham (Durham) purchased real property located in West Columbia from third-party plaintiff/respondent United Companies Financial Corporation *602 (United). Durham gave United a promissory note and mortgage. The mortgage permitted United to collect a monthly escrow amount for payment of taxes.

The property taxes were not paid for the 1989 tax year. On June 12, 1991, the Lexington County Treasurer-Tax Collector (County) sent a notice to Durham stating the property had been seized for delinquent property taxes.

County sold the property at a public auction tax sale to third-party defendant/petitioner Gloria Baker (Baker) on October 7, 1991. On August 26, 1992, County notified Durham the property had been sold and informed him the redemption period ended on October 7, 1992. Durham took no action.

On December 15, 1992, County mailed United a notice advising the property had been sold for nonpayment of taxes. The notice stated, if United wished to protect its interest in the property, payment of $1,032.10 must be received by January 15,1993. 1 United did not respond.

County delivered Baker the tax deed to the property on May 6, 1993. Baker assumed possession of the property.

Durham brought this action against United alleging breach of the agreement to pay the property taxes. United filed a third-party complaint against Baker claiming County failed to give it the statutorily required 30-day notice before the end of the redemption period. Baker asserted her title was valid and filed a cross-claim to quiet title.

The trial court concluded County gave proper notice to United, even though the notice was given after the end of the redemption period. United appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed, declaring the tax sale and deed void. Id.

ISSUE

Did the Court of Appeals err by holding the 30-day notice required by § 12-49-300 must be given during the redemption period?

*603 DISCUSSION

The sale of the property of a defaulting taxpayer is governed by statute. Osborne v. Vallentine, 196 S.C. 90, 12 S.E.2d 856 (1941); Von Elbrecht v. Jacobs, 286 S.C. 240, 332 S.E.2d 568 (Ct.App.1985). Chapter 51 of Title 12 establishes the following procedure.

After the county treasurer issues a tax execution against a defaulting taxpayer, if the taxes remain unpaid for thirty days, a notice of delinquent taxes is mailed to the owner of record. The notice must specify that if the taxes, penalties, assessments, and costs are not paid, the property will be advertised and sold to satisfy the delinquency. If the taxes remain unpaid another thirty days, the execution officer takes exclusive possession of so much of the property as is necessary to satisfy the payment of taxes, penalties, assessments, and costs. Exclusive possession is taken by mailing a notice of delinquent property taxes, assessments, penalties, and costs to the defaulting taxpayer. S.C.Code Ann. § 12-51-40 (Supp.1997).

After a delinquent tax sale is held and the successful bidder pays the bid amount, he is furnished with a receipt but does not obtain a deed or title. S.C.Code Ann. § 12-51-60 (Supp. 1997). The defaulting taxpayer, any mortgagee, or other interested party may redeem the item of real estate by paying the delinquent taxes, assessments, penalties, costs, and interest. The redemption provision states, in part, as follows:

The defaulting taxpayer, any grantee from the owner, or any mortgage or judgment creditor may within twelve months from the date of the delinquent tax sale redeem each item of real estate by paying to the person officially charged with the collection of delinquent taxes, assessments, penalties, and costs, together with eight percent interest on the whole amount of the delinquent tax sale bid.

S.C.Code Ann. § 12-51-90 (Supp.1997).

An additional notice of the tax sale must be given to the owner of record between forty-five and twenty days prior to the end of the redemption period. S.C.Code Ann. § 12-51-120 (Supp.1997).

Thereafter,

*604 [u]pon failure of the defaulting taxpayer, any grantee from the owner, or any mortgage or judgment creditor, to redeem realty within the time period allowed for redemption, the person officially charged with the collection of delinquent taxes shall within thirty days or as soon thereafter as possible make a tax title to the purchaser or the purchaser’s assignee. Delivery of the tax title to the clerk of court or register of deeds is considered “putting the purchaser (or assignee) in possession.”

S.C.Code Ann. § 12-51-130 (Supp.1997). 2

Chapter 49 contains the following provision:

When real estate is sold for taxes in a county, the sheriff, before delivering the title to real estate to the purchaser at such sale, shall give at least thirty days’ notice of the sale to a mortgagee ... appearing of record ... in order that the mortgagee ... may have opportunity to redeem the real estate, as provided by law for the owner.

S.C.Code Ann. § 12-49-300 (Supp.1997).

The Court of Appeals held the County’s failure to give United the notice required by § 12-49-300 within the redemption period violated the statutory requirements relating to tax sales. The Court of Appeals determined the notice must be given within the redemption period so that the mortgagee has an opportunity to redeem the property within the one-year period. Durham v. United Companies Financial Corp., supra. We disagree.

The cardinal rule of statutory construction is that the Court is to ascertain and effectuate the actual intent of the legislature. Mid-State Auto Auction of Lexington, Inc. v. Altman, 324 S.C. 65, 476 S.E.2d 690 (1996). In interpreting a statute, words must be given their plain and ordinary meaning without resorting to subtle or forced construction to limit or expand the statute’s operation. Rowe v. Hyatt, 321 S.C. 366, 468 S.E.2d 649 (1996).

*605

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Wendy Reed v. County of Dorchester
Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2022
Enos v. Doe
669 S.E.2d 619 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2008)
State v. Brannon
666 S.E.2d 272 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2008)
Parker v. Brown
Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2008
State v. Sweat
665 S.E.2d 645 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2008)
Wieters v. Bon-Secours-St. Francis Xavier Hospital, Inc.
662 S.E.2d 430 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2008)
Wieters v. BON-SECOURS-ST. FRANCIS XAVIER HOSP.
662 S.E.2d 430 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2008)
Grinnell Corp. v. Wood
663 S.E.2d 61 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2008)
Thompson Ex Rel. Harvey v. CISSON CONST.
659 S.E.2d 171 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2008)
Key Corporate Capital, Inc. v. County of Beaufort
644 S.E.2d 675 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 2007)
University of Southern California v. Moran
617 S.E.2d 135 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2005)
Bass v. Isochem
617 S.E.2d 369 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2005)
Pressley v. Blackwell
Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2005
Jones v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
612 S.E.2d 719 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2005)
Liberty Mutual Insurance v. South Carolina Second Injury Fund
611 S.E.2d 297 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2005)
Sloan v. Greenville County
590 S.E.2d 338 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2003)
Georgia-Carolina Bail Bonds, Inc. v. County of Aiken
579 S.E.2d 334 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2003)
HAWKINS & GRYPHON, INC. v. Bruno Yacht Sales, Inc.
536 S.E.2d 698 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2000)
Wade v. Berkeley County
529 S.E.2d 743 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
503 S.E.2d 465, 331 S.C. 600, 1998 S.C. LEXIS 83, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/durham-v-united-companies-financial-corp-sc-1998.