Introduction

This commentary examines the recent decision in County Acquisitions, LLC v. Katherine Lanser, 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 946, in which the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department, tackled two intertwined legal issues arising from a tax lien certificate foreclosure process under a locally adopted law. The case involves a dispute over the record title to real property where the plaintiff, County Acquisitions, LLC, procured a tax lien certificate at a public auction conducted under Village Code § 294-8, and later applied for a treasurer’s deed following the defendant’s failure to redeem the property. Central to the dispute is the legality of reviving the defendant’s right to redeem the property after the statutory period had expired and whether the method of conveyance constitutes an unconstitutional taking without just compensation.

The parties include:

• Appellant: County Acquisitions, LLC – the purchaser of the tax lien certificate and subsequent applicant for title quieting.
• Respondent/Defendant: Katherine Lanser, the property owner who failed to redeem the property within the legally required period.

The case is particularly significant as it revisits statutory interpretations involving tax lien sales, redemption rights, and constitutional takings, including reference to recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions.

Summary of the Judgment

The court reviewed two orders from the Supreme Court, Nassau County. The first order (June 8, 2022) had conditionally granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, pending a 90-day redemption period for the defendant. However, on reargument, the order entered February 10, 2023 effectively vacated the earlier conditional grant and denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. The appellate decision in this judgment dismissed the appeal of the June 2022 order – on the basis that it had been vacated – and modified the February 2023 order. The appellate court emphasized that the defendant’s right to redeem had long expired since the applicable statutory period was over once the Village had issued a treasurer’s deed. Despite this, the court identified procedural and substantive irregularities, including sua sponte raising of issues under the COVID-19 Emergency Eviction and Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2020 (CEEFPA), and highlighting potential constitutional challenges under the Takings Clause. Given these complexities, particularly the defendant’s constitutional takings contention, the matter is remitted back to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for further proceedings with notice provided to the Attorney General and other litigants.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The court extensively relied on several precedents and statutory interpretations, including:

• Joel Friedberg Trustee v. Metaglo, Inc.: This case discussed the now-repealed statutory provisions under former RPTL 1452–1464, clarifying the framework for tax lien sales and the redemption process.
• QUINN v. WRIGHT: Emphasized the owner's right to redeem within statutory time limits and set guidelines for the notification process in tax foreclosure procedures.
• MATTER OF COUNTY OF NASSAU (GELB-SIEGEL) and Carr Holdings, LLC v. Martinez: Provided context regarding the procedures in granting a treasurer’s deed after the statutory redemption window had lapsed.
• James B. Nutter & Co. v. County of Saratoga: Reiterated that tax sale statutes must be interpreted liberally in favor of the property owner, emphasizing that counties and municipalities collect taxes rather than confiscate property.
• Tyler v. Hennepin County: Although decided after the relevant orders and not directly controlling, its analysis on surplus funds and the limits of tax lien sales has been invoked to question if the taxpayer’s rights were adequately protected against a taking without just compensation.

These precedents provided the judicial foundation for analyzing both the revival of a redemption right after expiry and the potential takings claim arising from the village’s method of conveying title.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning unfolded in several tightly interlinked layers:

• Statutory Interpretation of Tax Lien Sales: The court reviewed the history and evolution of the applicable statutory schemes under former RPTL article 14, title 3. Even though the original provisions had been repealed, the local law adopted by the Village of Rockville Centre enabled the continuation of the tax sale process. By emphasizing compliance with the conditions applicable at the time of the tax lien sale (2018), the court underscored that the redemption period had unequivocally expired, leaving no room for post-expiry revival.
• Due Process and Sua Sponte Reasoning: The court criticized its earlier decision for attempting to revive the defendant’s right to redeem post the statutory deadline. It held that statutory rights, particularly the right to redeem, cannot be resurrected once legally extinguished. Moreover, the court found that its own sua sponte exploration of CEEFPA requirements in a dispositive summary judgment motion deprived the defendant of due process considerations—including the opportunity to contest the applicability of CEEFPA—thus undermining fairness.
• Constitutional Takings Consideration: The defendant’s appeal raised a constitutional challenge that the Village’s method of conveying the property—the sale of a tax lien certificate followed by issuance of a treasurer’s deed—resulted in an unconstitutional taking. The court reviewed relevant provisions of the Takings Clause as applied by both the U.S. and New York Constitutions, comparing this case with past decisions such as SHEEHAN v. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK and Tyler. While not deciding conclusively on the takings issue, the court determined that the question must be resolved with further briefing and procedural notice to interested parties, including the Attorney General.

Impact on Future Cases and Legal Practice

The decision sets significant precedents in two critical areas of law:

• Irrevocability of Statutory Redemption Periods: The ruling reaffirms that once a statutory period for redeeming a property following a tax sale has expired, the right to redeem cannot be revived even through judicial intervention. This underscores the judiciary’s deference to legislative timelines and limits any attempts to retroactively extend redemption rights. Future litigants will need to be mindful of strictly adhering to statutory periods and the practical consequences of missed deadlines.
• Procedural Fairness Concerning Sua Sponte Decisions: By criticizing its own use of sua sponte reasoning in reviewing dispositive motions without prior notice, the appellate decision reinforces due process principles. Lower courts will likely be more cautious in extending their inquiry beyond the precise arguments raised by the parties, especially when statutory issues are involved.
• Constitutional Takings Challenges: The decision leaves open the constitutional takings argument under scrutiny of modern interpretations of the Takings Clause. This open-ended remittal will likely prompt more detailed future litigation concerning the balance between municipal tax collection practices and the protection of private property rights.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Tax Lien Sale & Redemption: In simple terms, a tax lien sale is when a government entity auctions off a property’s unpaid tax claim. The purchaser gets a tax lien certificate and then, if the property owner does not pay the owed taxes within a defined period, the purchaser can eventually apply for a deed to own the property.

Sua Sponte Reasoning: This refers to a court’s decision to address an issue on its own without one of the parties raising that issue. While permissible in some situations, it becomes problematic if it affects a party’s right to be heard on a vital matter.

Constitutional Takings: Under the Takings Clause, the government must provide “just compensation” when it takes private property for public use. The discussion in this case centers on whether the sequence of actions leading to the transfer of title—especially when there is a surplus or windfall benefit left with the purchaser—amounted to an illegal taking without due compensation.

Conclusion

The judgment in County Acquisitions, LLC v. Katherine Lanser serves as an important reminder of the strict limits of statutory redemption rights in the context of tax lien sales. It underscores that once a property owner’s right to redeem has expired according to the expressed statutory conditions, any attempt to revive such rights is both improper and legally flawed. Furthermore, the case illuminates the risks associated with courts engaging in sua sponte reasoning on dispositive matters, emphasizing the imperative of due process and fair notice.

Finally, by remitting the takings question back to the lower court with explicit instructions to provide notice to the Attorney General and involved parties, the decision signals a cautious approach to constitutional challenges where rapid judicial action might overlook broader policy implications and procedural fairness. As a precedent, this opinion will likely shape future disputes involving tax lien foreclosures, enforcement of local tax laws, and the delicate balance between municipal powers and property rights under constitutional constraints.

In sum, this judgment reinforces the essential legal principle that statutory deadlines must be upheld, and constitutional challenges to tax collection mechanisms must be handled with robust procedural safeguards, thereby guiding both future litigation and legislative modifications in the area of real property law.