IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2002-CA-01431-SCT
JAMES ALEXANDER
v.
TAMMY WOMACK, BETTY CATCHINGS,
MAELEANER BENSON, ELZIE MAE BERRY,
DENNIE TAYLOR, CURTIS RAY TAYLOR, DARRON
TAYLOR, DONNELL TAYLOR, JR. AND WILLIE
RAY TAYLOR
CONSOLIDATED WITH
NO. 2002-CA-01437-SCT
JAMES ALEXANDER
v.
WILLIE BOYCE DAVIS
CONSOLIDATED WITH
NO. 2002-CA-01440-SCT
JAMES ALEXANDER
v.
GEORGE HARRIS, JR., ET AL.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 7/22/2002
TRIAL JUDGE: HON. J. LARRY BUFFINGTON
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: LAWRENCE COUNTY CHANCERY COURT
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: PAT H. McCULLOUGH
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES: MALCOLM T. ROGERS
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - REAL PROPERTY
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 10/16/2003
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
BEFORE McRAE, P.J., EASLEY AND GRAVES, JJ.
EASLEY, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:
¶1. Aggrieved by chancery court judgments voiding the tax sales of three parcels of land,
the tax sale purchaser of all three parcels appeals contending that the landowners' suits to set
aside the sales were untimely and, alternatively, that the chancellor erred in setting aside the
sales because the chancery clerk and the sheriff failed to give the statutorily required notice
to the landowners. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW
¶2. This appeal deals with three separate lawsuits from the Chancery Court of Lawrence
County, involving three different tax deeds. However, since these have similar facts involving
the same appellant, the same legal issues and the same attorneys, these cases have been
consolidated by this Court.
¶3. Firstly, on August 21, 1990, a tax sale was conducted by the Lawrence County Tax
Collector (Tax Collector) for property delinquent in taxes for the year 1989. The taxes had
been assessed against Willie Boyce Davis (Davis). James Alexander (Alexander) purchased
the property at the tax sale. The two-year statutory tax sale redemption period required to
redeem pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 27-45-3 (Rev. 2002) ran on August 21, 1992, without
the property being redeemed by Davis. Alexander was issued a tax deed to the property on
April 13, 1999, and it was recorded in the land records on August 30, 1999. On April 17,
2
2000, Davis filed suit in the Chancery Court of Lawrence County to set aside the tax deed.
Davis alleged that he never received notice of the impending maturity or the expiration of the
time for redemption of the property sold as required by Miss. Code Ann. §§ 27-43-1 & 27-43-
3 (Rev. 2002).
¶4. Secondly, on August 20, 1992, a tax sale was conducted by the Tax Collector for
delinquent property taxes for the year 1991. The property was held in estate status listed as
the Elia Taylor Estate. Alexander purchased the property at the tax sale. The two-year
redemption period expired on August 30, 1994. The heirs of the Taylor Estate had made
redemption installment payments subsequent to the property's tax sale. However, the heirs did
not make full payment to satisfy the redemption within the two-year period of time. Alexander
was issued a tax deed to the property on April 27, 1999, and the tax deed was recorded on
August 30, 1999. On April 17, 2000, the heirs of the estate filed suit in Lawrence County
Chancery Court to set aside the tax deed alleging they did not receive notice of the expiration
of the two-year redemption period.
¶5. Thirdly, on August 30, 1993, a tax sale was conducted by the Tax Collector for
delinquent property taxes for the year 1992. Alexander purchased the property for the
delinquent 1992 taxes assessed to Jack and Myrtis Harris Estate. The two-year redemption
period expired on August 30, 1995. Alexander was issued a tax deed to the property on August
27, 1999, which was recorded on August 30, 1999. On April 13, 2000, the heirs of the Harris
Estate filed suit in the Chancery Court of Lawrence County to set aside the tax deed. The heirs
alleged that no one received notice of the impending expiration of the two-year redemption
period.
3
¶6. In each of the three cases, Davis, the heirs of the Taylor Estate and the heirs of the
Harris Estate, collectively known as the plaintiffs, filed motions for partial summary judgment
contending that since the notice requirement contained in Miss. Code Ann. § 27-43-3 was not
complied with, the tax deeds should be declared null and void and set aside.
¶7. On July 22, 2002, the trial court entered the same order in all three cases voiding the
tax sales and tax deeds. The trial court awarded Alexander a refund of his money paid with
statutory interest and reasonable attorney's fees.
¶8. Alexander now appeals to this Court raising the following issues:
A. Whether the trial court erred in voiding the tax sales
and tax deeds as the three-year statute of limitations
barred these actions.
B. Whether the trial court erred in voiding the tax sales
and tax deeds as the Plaintiffs' damages were the
direct result of the State of Mississippi's breach of a
contractual obligation and not the fault of Alexander.
DISCUSSION
¶9. On appeal, Alexander contends that the trial court erred in not applying the general
three-year statute of limitations under Miss. Code Ann. § 15-1-49 (1) (Rev. 2003).
¶10. “This Court uses a de novo standard of review when passing on questions of law
including statute of limitations issues.” Stephens v. Equitable Life Assur. Society of U.S.,
850 So. 2d 78, 81 (Miss. 2003) (quoting ABC Mfg. Corp. v. Doyle, 749 So.2d 43, 45 (Miss.
1999)). Our residual statute of limitations, as set out in Miss. Code Ann. § 15-1-49, states that
4
“[a]ll actions for which no other period of limitation is prescribed shall be commenced within
three (3) years next after the cause of such action accrued, and not after.”
¶11. Under Rule 8(c) of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure, the statute of limitations
is an affirmative defense which must be pled. If a party intends to rely on one of the M.R.C.P.
8(c) defenses, he must affirmatively plead it. Wholey v. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc., 530 So. 2d
136, 138 (Miss. 1988). An affirmative defense is waived where it is neither pleaded nor tried
by consent. Id. (citing Bell v. First Columbus Nat'l Bank, 493 So.2d 964, 968 (Miss. 1986)).
See also Goode v. Village of Woodgreen Homeowners Ass'n, 662 So. 2d 1064, 1077 (Miss.
1995).
¶12. First, the learned chancellor in his order did not make any findings regarding the statute
of limitations. Even if the statute of limitations issue were properly before the Court,
Alexander is likewise unable to refer this Court to any controlling precedent as to his position
on the statute of limitations. We have consistently held that “an argument unsupported by cited
authority need not be considered by the Court.” Dowdle Butane Gas Co. v. Moore, 831 So.
2d 1124, 1136 (Miss. 2002). In addition, we have expressly held that “[i]t is the duty of an
appellant to provide authority in support of an assignment of error.” Jones v. Howell, 827 So.
2d 691, 702 (Miss. 2002). Where an assertion of error is not supported by authority, that
assertion is deemed abandoned. Id. This Court is therefore procedurally barred from
considering unsupported assertions on appeal. Webb v. DeSoto County, 843 So. 2d 682, 685
(Miss. 2003).
¶13. Second, a review of the record in this consolidated case indicates that Alexander failed
to raise the statute of limitations in his answers. Moreover, Alexander did not raise this issue
5
in his responses to the plaintiffs’ motions for partial summary judgment. The only reference
to the statute of limitations Alexander made was in a memorandum of law submitted on issues
raised by the undisputed facts of record “[i]n compliance with [the court’s] instructions of
March 25, 2002.” However, there is no evidence in the record that the statute of limitations
issue was tried by consent of the parties. Because Rule 8(c) and our cases hold that affirmative
defenses are waived if not pleaded or tried by consent, it is clear that this issue is not properly
before the Court.
1
6
¶16. Miss. Code Ann. § 27-43-1 provides in part:
The clerk of the chancery court shall, within one hundred eighty (180) days and
not less than sixty (60) days prior to the expiration of the time of redemption
with respect to land sold, either to individuals or to the state, be required to
issue notice to the record owner of the land sold as of 180 days prior to the
expiration of the time of redemption ....
¶17. Working in connection with Miss. Code Ann. § 27-43-1, Miss. Code Ann. § 27-43-3
states:
The clerk shall issue the notice to the sheriff of the county of the reputed
owner's residence, if he be a resident of the State of Mississippi, and the sheriff
shall be required to serve personal notice as summons issued from the courts
are served, and make his return to the chancery clerk issuing same. The clerk
shall mail a copy of same to the reputed owner at his usual street address if same
can be ascertained, and he shall note such action on the tax sales record. The
clerk shall also be required to publish the name and address of the reputed owner
of the property and the legal description and the legal description of such
property in a public newspaper of the county in which the land is located, or if
no newspaper is published as such, then in a newspaper having a general
circulation in such county. Such publication shall be made at least forty-five
(45) days prior to the expiration of the redemption period.
If said reputed owner is a nonresident of the State of Mississippi, then the clerk
shall mail a copy of said notice thereto in the same manner as hereinabove set
out for notice to a resident of the State of Mississippi, except that person notice
served by the sheriff shall not be required.
7
Notice by mail shall be by registered or certified mail. In the event the
notice by mail is returned undelivered and the personal notice as hereinable
required to be served by the sheriff is returned not found, then the clerk shall
make further search and inquiry to ascertain the reputed owner's street and post
office address. If the reputed owner's street or post office address is
ascertained after the addition search and inquiry, the clerk shall again issue
notice as hereinabove set out. If personal notice is again issued and it is again
returned not found and if notice by mail is again returned undelivered, then the
clerk shall file an affidavit to that effect and shall specify therein the acts of
search and inquiry made by him in an effort to ascertain the reputed owner's
street and post office address and said affidavit shall be retained as permanent
record in the office of the clerk and such action shall be noted on the tax sales
record. If the clerk is still unable to ascertain the reputed owner's street or post
office address after making search and inquiry for the second time, then it shall
not be necessary to issue an additional notice but the clerk shall file an affidavit
specifying therein the acts of search and inquiry made by him in an effort to
ascertain the reputed owner's street and post office address and said affidavit
shall be retained as a permanent record in the office of the clerk and such action
shall be noted on the tax sale record.
Should the clerk inadvertently fail to send notice as prescribed in this
section, then such sale shall be void and the clerk shall not be liable to the
purchaser or owner upon refund of all purchase money paid.
(emphasis added).
8
¶18. Here, the trial court found that the required notices were not sent and published as
required by statute and that, as a result, the tax sales were void. the clerk and the
sheriff did not provide the statutory notice required in Miss. Code Ann.
§§ 27-43-1 and 27-43-3 as to the three properties in question.
CONCLUSION
¶19. Therefore, for all the foregoing reasons, the judgments of the Lawrence County
Chancery Court are .
¶20.
PITTMAN, C.J., McRAE AND SMITH, P.JJ., WALLER, COBB, CARLSON AND
GRAVES, JJ., CONCUR. DIAZ, J., NOT PARTICIPATING.
9