Arnold v. Carafides, 143

Citation282 Md. 375,384 A.2d 729
Decision Date07 April 1978
Docket NumberNo. 143,143
PartiesEllen P. ARNOLD v. Evangelos P. CARAFIDES.
CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland

Page 375

282 Md. 375
384 A.2d 729
Ellen P. ARNOLD
v.
Evangelos P. CARAFIDES.
No. 143.
Court of Appeals of Maryland.
April 7, 1978.

Page 376

Kevin M. O'Connell, Rockville (Betts, Clogg & Murdock, Rockville, on brief), for appellant.

Elbert R. Shore, Jr., Rockville (John T. Bell, Frank S. Cornelius, Bell & Cornelius and Alfred L. Rehder, Rockville, on brief), for appellee.

[384 A.2d 730] Argued before MURPHY, C.J., and SMITH, DIGGES, LEVINE, ELDRIDGE, ORTH, and COLE, JJ.

SMITH, Judge.

We shall here hold that a motion to set aside a tax sale decree made out a case of constructive fraud. Accordingly, we shall be obliged to reverse a refusal to reopen a proceeding brought by appellee, Evangelos P. Carafides (Carafides), under Maryland's tax sale statute, Maryland Code (1957) Art. 81, §§ 70-123, to foreclose the equity of redemption of appellant, Ellen P. Arnold (Mrs. Arnold), in certain land of hers in Montgomery County. 1

Page 377

The Law

Maryland Rule BS40 provides:

"The procedure for tax sales, including provisions for the order of publication, shall be in accordance with Code, Article 81, Sections 70 to 123."

Section 97 provides that the sections of the subtitle relative to foreclosure of rights of redemption by equity suits are to "be liberally construed as remedial legislation to encourage the foreclosure of rights of redemption by suits in the equity courts and for the decreeing of marketable titles to property sold by the collector." This was said by our predecessors in Thomas v. Kolker, 195 Md. 470, 475, 73 A.2d 886, 888 (1950), to be a declaration by the General Assembly "that the public interest in marketable titles to property purchased at tax sales outweighs considerations of individual hardship in every case, except upon a showing of lack of jurisdiction or fraud in the conduct of the foreclosure."

Under § 100 a suit to foreclose the equity of redemption of the owners of land sold at tax sales may be filed "at any time after the expiration of one year and a day from the date of sale in any of the counties" of this State, but "within two years of the date of the certificate of sale . . .." The proceeding is to be brought "in the equity court of the county in which the land is located . . .." § 102. Section 103 governs parties to the proceeding. The plaintiff is to be the holder of the certificate of sale. The defendants are to include the owner of the land "as disclosed by a search of the land records of the county, of the records of the register of wills of the county, and of the records of any court of law or equity of the county." In addition, if the property is subject to a ground rent, "the parties defendant shall be the owner of the fee-simple title and the owner of the leasehold title as disclosed by a search" of the same records. Any mortgagee of the land or his assignee of record "named as such in any unreleased mortgage recorded among the land records of the county" is to be included among the parties defendant.

Service of notice is governed by § 106. A subpoena is to be

Page 378

issued "for all parties defendant named in the said bill who are residents of this State and upon such bill the same process by summons, notice or otherwise shall be had to procure the answer and appearance of all such defendants as is had in other cases in equity," except as otherwise provided in the subtitle relative to tax sales. A notice by publication is required by § 107 to be issued at the same time the subpoena is issued under § 106. That notice is to be "directed to all parties defendant, known and unknown, naming the known parties defendant and including the unknown parties defendant and all other persons having an interest in the property by the designations" for which provision has previously been made. It is to "issue in the manner now, or which may be hereafter prescribed by law, for the issuance of an order of publication against nonresidents," except as otherwise provided in the subtitle relative to tax sales, "and shall be published and the publication thereof proved as in cases of orders of publication against nonresidents." In Hauver v. Dorsey, 228 Md. 499, 502, 180 A.2d 475, 476 (1962), our predecessors said they thought "it was the purpose and effect of the language of Art. 81, sec. 107 . . . to adopt whatever is the current legal procedure in regard to publication against nonresidents." Rule 105 as it then existed was held applicable in that case.

[384 A.2d 731] Rule 105 concerns service of process where there is in rem or quasi in rem jurisdiction. In Sanchez v. James, 209 Md. 266, 270, 120 A.2d 836, 837 (1956), this Court said, "The law is established that tax foreclosure proceedings are in rem and not in personam." Rule 105 b pertains to publication when the whereabouts of a defendant are unknown. In that case the court may direct service of process by publication if "the plaintiff files a statement under oath or produces other sworn evidence setting forth a circumstantial account of the efforts made to locate the defendant which satisfies the court that reasonable efforts to locate the defendant have been made in good faith . . .." Rule 111 provides that in any action in which rights relating to land are involved a defendant may be proceeded against pursuant to Rule 105 or, if his whereabouts are unknown, in lieu of the methods in Rule 105 b "the court

Page 379

may order the sheriff to set up a copy of the order of publication upon the land." Upon proof "of the fact and date of posting . . . made by certificate of the sheriff filed in the proceeding" such service of process "shall be in all respects as effectual to bind the land and to affect the title thereto as if personal service had been made upon such defendant," with an exception not here pertinent.

Under § 113 no proceeding may be brought to reopen any final decree entered in a tax sale case such as this "except on the ground of lack of jurisdiction or...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • Dillow v. Magraw, 139
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • September 1, 1994
    ...part of the foreclosing party to adequately search land records, court records, and register of wills' records, Arnold v. Carafides, 282 Md. 375, 383-84, 384 A.2d 729 (1978), as well as the failure to make at least a good faith effort to provide actual notice to owners of the property. Jann......
  • D'aoust v. Diamond, 1708
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • March 10, 2011
    ...(1966).... Failure to comply with the notice requirements has since that time been considered constructive fraud. See Arnold v. Carafides, 282 Md. 375, 384 A.2d 729 (1978); Smith v. Watner, 256 Md. 400, 260 A.2d 341 (1970); Brooks v. McMillan, 42 Md.App. 270, 400 A.2d 436 (1979); Karkenny v......
  • Canaj v. Baker, 72, September Term, 2005.
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • March 6, 2006
    ...at 91. Failure to comply with the notice requirements has since that time been considered constructive fraud. See Arnold v. Carafides, 282 Md. 375, 384 A.2d 729 (1978); Smith v. Watner, 256 Md. 400, 260 A.2d 341 (1970); Brooks v. McMillan, 42 Md. App. 270, 400 A.2d 436 (1979); Karkenny v. M......
  • Scheve v. McPherson
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • December 11, 1979
    ...of foreclosure. The statute itself makes this clear. See also Jannenga v. Johnson, 243 Md. 1, 220 A.2d 89 (1966); Arnold v. Carafides, 282 Md. 375, 384 A.2d 729 (1978); Brooks v. McMillan, 42 Md.App. 270, 400 A.2d 436 (1979). The question, in each case, is whether the act or omission compla......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT