Strict Compliance with Statutory Notice Requirements for Tax Sale Redemptions

Introduction

The Supreme Court of Mississippi’s decision in Foreman v. DHP1, LLC (2025) reinforces the principle that tax-sale redemption statutes must be followed to the letter. The dispute arose over Lot 17 in Hancock County, originally owned by Emmett Hotard, and later encumbered by loans, liens, and ultimately sold at tax sale and foreclosure. The key issue was whether the chancery clerk satisfied the statutory notice requirements—personal service, certified mail, and diligent inquiry—to the record owner as of 180 days before the redemption period expired. Baron Foreman (successor in interest to the tax-sale purchaser) appealed after the chancery court voided the sale for defective notice. The Supreme Court affirmed, underscoring strict construction of tax-sale forfeiture statutes and mandating precise compliance.

Summary of the Judgment

Justice Chamberlin, writing for a unanimous Court, held that:

• Mississippi Code § 27-43-1 entitles the record owner as of 180 days before redemption to notice of the tax-sale maturity.
• Mississippi Code § 27-43-3 requires notice by personal service, certified mail, and publication, or, if mail and service fail, a sworn affidavit of diligent search.
• The chancery clerk sent certified mail to an incorrect or undeliverable address and did not personally serve the record owner, Emmett Hotard.
• A filed “First Affidavit” lacked notarization and sworn statements, failing to prove the required diligent inquiry.
• Any deviation from these procedures voids the sale; accordingly, the tax deed to Ken Foreman and subsequent quitclaim to Baron Foreman were declared void.
• The chancery court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of DHP1, LLC (Eric Hotard’s entity), confirming a cloud-free title in DHP1, was affirmed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court examined and applied several controlling precedents:

• Campbell Properties, Inc. v. Cook (2018): Statutes dealing with tax forfeitures are strictly construed in favor of landowners; any deviation from mandated notice procedures voids the sale.
• Reed v. Florimonte (2008): Reaffirmed that strict compliance with notice statutes is essential and that even clerical errors can invalidate a tax sale.
• Moore v. Marathon Asset Mgmt., LLC (2008, Miss. Ct. App.): Clarified that a purchaser at foreclosure has standing to challenge a tax sale but is not the “record owner” for notice purposes.
• Rush v. Wallace Rentals, LLC (2003): An outlier where intentional misrepresentation by the landowner and extensive search efforts by the clerk sustained the sale; distinguished on its peculiar facts.
• DeWeese Nelson Realty, Inc. v. Equity Servs. Co. (1986): Described the combined requirements of personal service, certified mail, and publication under the statute.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning proceeded in three steps:

1. Identifying the Entitled Party: Under § 27-43-1, the “record owner as of 180 days before redemption” (Emmett Hotard) must receive notice. Attempts to shift notice to the purchaser at foreclosure (DHP1) failed because “reputed owner” in § 27-43-3 tracks the § 27-43-1 definition.
2. Assessing Notice Compliance: The clerk’s office sent certified mail to an insufficient address (returned “unable to forward”) and personally served only the foreclosure trustee (not Emmett). Publication alone was inadequate, and the “First Affidavit” was not sworn or notarized, thus failing § 27-43-3’s diligent‐inquiry affidavit requirement.
3. Strict Construction and Voidness: Consistent with Campbell Properties and Reed, any statutory deviation voids the sale. The failure to undertake a diligent search—despite an easily discoverable correct address in the deed of trust—sealed the outcome.

Impact on Future Cases

This decision cements the requirement for:

• Exact adherence to §§ 27-43-1 and 27-43-3 in all tax‐sale redemptions.
• Clerks to perform thorough, documented searches in county land records when mail and personal service fail.
• Strict scrutiny of affidavits of inquiry—each must be sworn, notarized, and detail specific search steps.

Practitioners and clerks will need to double‐check addresses on deeds of trust, ensure certified‐mail returns are logged, and prepare properly attested affidavits to avoid costly invalidations.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Record Owner vs. Reputed Owner: The “record owner” is the person officially listed in public land records 180 days before redemption; “reputed owner” tracks that same person for notice purposes.
• Redemption Period: The time after a tax sale during which the original owner can pay delinquent taxes plus fees to reclaim title.
• Diligent Inquiry Affidavit: A sworn, notarized statement documenting extra efforts (phone books, land records, internet searches) when mail and personal service fail.
• Strict Construction: Interpreting tax‐forfeiture statutes narrowly to protect landowners; deviations invalidate sales.

Conclusion

Foreman v. DHP1, LLC establishes—and reinforces—a clear, uncompromising rule: tax‐sale redemption statutes must be followed rigorously. The record owner as of 180 days before redemption is entitled to personal service, certified mail, and publication, or else a properly sworn and notarized affidavit of diligent search. Any lapse, however technical, voids the sale. This decision will guide chancery clerks, litigants, and attorneys to ensure that notice procedures are exact, thorough, and well‐documented in all future tax‐sale redemptions.