Williams v. City of Providence

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Williams v. City of Providence

641 A.2d 1328, 1994 R.I. LEXIS 111, 1994 WL 164813

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedApril 14, 1994

Docket93-353-A

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 641 A.2d 1328 (Williams v. City of Providence) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Williams v. City of Providence, 641 A.2d 1328, 1994 R.I. LEXIS 111, 1994 WL 164813 (R.I. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

This matter came before this court on April 4, 1994, pursuant to an order requiring both parties to appear and to show cause why the issues raised in the plaintiffs appeal should not be summarily decided.

The plaintiff appeals from a Superior Court judgment voiding a tax sale which allowed the City of Providence (City) to foreclose the right of redemption on certain property. After hearing the arguments of counsel and reviewing the memoranda submitted by the parties, this court concludes that cause has not been shown.

At the time plaintiff purchased the property at the second tax sale, the City already had foreclosed the original owners’ right of redemption. Once a foreclosure decree has been entered, the title conveyed by the tax deed becomes absolute. Driscoll v. Karroo Land Co. Inc., 600 A.2d 722, 724 (R.I.1991). Hence at the time of the second tax sale, the City was the record owner and its title was absolute. Additionally its interest in the property was recorded. Therefore it was entitled to notice of the attempted tax sale. Consequently since the City did not receive notice of the attempted tax sale, the trial justice did not err in voiding the tax sale and entering judgment for the city.

The plaintiffs appeal is therefore denied and dismissed, and the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

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

ORDER

This matter came before this court on April 4, 1994, pursuant to an order requiring both parties to appear and to show cause why the issues raised in the plaintiffs appeal should not be summarily decided.

The plaintiff appeals from a Superior Court judgment voiding a tax sale which allowed the City of Providence (City) to foreclose the right of redemption on certain property. After hearing the arguments of counsel and reviewing the memoranda submitted by the parties, this court concludes that cause has not been shown.

At the time plaintiff purchased the property at the second tax sale, the City already had foreclosed the original owners’ right of redemption. Once a foreclosure decree has been entered, the title conveyed by the tax deed becomes absolute. Driscoll v. Karroo Land Co. Inc., 600 A.2d 722, 724 (R.I.1991). Hence at the time of the second tax sale, the City was the record owner and its title was absolute. Additionally its interest in the property was recorded. Therefore it was entitled to notice of the attempted tax sale. Consequently since the City did not receive notice of the attempted tax sale, the trial justice did not err in voiding the tax sale and entering judgment for the city.

The plaintiffs appeal is therefore denied and dismissed, and the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

641 A.2d 1328, 1994 R.I. LEXIS 111, 1994 WL 164813, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-city-of-providence-ri-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack