|
|
|
Leaning Toward Strict Adherence to Statutory Notice Requirements for Property Liens
(June 2011) By Imran O. Shaukat, Summer Associate
For more information, contact Paul
Farquharson.
Crusader as Custodian for Strategic Municipal Lien Investments, LLC v. Charles E. Heyward, et al.,
Appeal No. 09-CV-1414 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, May 26, 2011) | View pdf
In this recently issued opinion, the Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia concluded that failure to notify a property owner of
his right of redemption was a significant statutory defect that warranted
nullification of a water and sewage lien. Specifically, the Court held that
Crusader as Custodian for Strategic Municipal Lien Investments, LLC’s
(“Crusader”) lien on Charles E. Heyward’s (“Heyward”) property was void when
Crusader failed to strictly adhere to the statutory notice requirements.
In 1992, Heyward purchased real property in the northeast
quadrant of the District of Columbia. By June 1996, the District of Columbia had
a lien on Heyward’s property for unpaid water and sewer charges. The Water and
Sewer Administration of the District of Columbia Department of Public Works
(“WSA”) issued a Certificate of Delinquent Water/Sewer Charges (“Certificate”)
to Heyward. Although the lien was for Heyward’s property located on 715 Irving
Street, N.E., the Certificate was mailed to 715 Irving Street, N.W.
After a number of conveyances and assignments of the
interest in the unpaid water and sewer charges, Crusader became the
substituted successor-in-interest. One of Crusader’s
predecessors-in-interest filed the instant complaint to foreclose Heyward’s
right of redemption as to the lien on the property. Heyward argued, inter
alia, that the delivery of the Certificate to the wrong address constituted
a failure to give notice. The trial court, agreeing with Heyward, determined
that the lien was void because Crusader sent the notice to the wrong
address, thereby failing to notify Heyward of his statutory right to redeem
his property.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia affirmed the trial court’s decision. First, the Court found that
the original sale of the lien to one of Crusader’s predecessors-in-interest
did not comport with the statutory requirement that the document state
Heyward’s name and the amount due. Second, although the Court had not
previously ruled that a lien was void when a party fails to strictly adhere
to the statutory notice requirements, the Court recognized that other
jurisdictions follow this principle. Persuaded by this authority, the Court
nullified the lien, concluding that Crusader’s failure to notify Heyward of
his right of redemption was a significant statutory defect, which violated
public policy.
|
|
|