Lippert v. Jung

• Decision Date: 12 October 2001
• Docket Number: No. 16,16
• Citation: 783 A.2d 206,366 Md. 221
• Parties: Frederick W. LIPPERT et ux., v. Barry S. JUNG.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

783 A.2d 206

366 Md. 221

Frederick W. LIPPERT et ux., v. Barry S. JUNG.

No. 16, Sept. Term, 2001.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

October 12, 2001.

Bruce A. Kent (Richard I. Martel, Jr., and Francis A. Pommett, III, on brief), Baltimore, for appellants.

William R. Levasseur, Jr. (Martin & Levasseur, on brief), Towson, for appellee.

Argued before BELL, C.J., ELDRIDGE, RAKER, WILNER, CATHELL, HARRELL and BATTAGLIA, JJ.

CATHELL, Judge.

In this very interesting case involving title to real property, Frederick and Ruth Lippert, appellants, claim title to the land in question by virtue of adverse possession allegedly extending for the statutory period. The unique aspect of this case is that almost nineteen years of the statutory period occurred prior to a tax sale of the premises at issue and a final order foreclosing the right of redemption, and the remaining portion of the statutory period occurred after the foreclosure of the right of redemption. It is the appellants' position that the adverse possession of property continues and survives successive owners, even when the last owner achieved his title through a tax sale and has properly foreclosed the equity of redemption.

Barry S. Jung, appellee, the successor in interest to the purchasers at the tax sale, contends that the statutory period begins to run anew in respect to property that has been purchased at a tax sale where the equity of redemption has been properly foreclosed.

I. Facts

In the mid-1970s, the Lipperts purchased a lot¹ in a subdivision in Baltimore County, Maryland. They mistakenly believed that the parcel they were buying also included two other, apparently abutting, lots. In addition to using the lot to which they had title, they also began to use the other two lots. The other two lots were eventually sold at a tax sale on May 16, 1991. On February 12, 1992, a proper judgment foreclosing all rights of redemption was entered.

The Lipperts apparently were not aware of the pendency of the tax sale, or of the proceedings to foreclose the equity of redemption. On May 13, 1998, slightly over six years after the judgment in the foreclosure proceeding was entered, appellee notified the appellants to remove various improvements from the property at issue here.

In response, and almost seven years after the redemption rights were foreclosed, appellants filed an action to quiet title to the property based upon adverse possession, claiming that the tax sale proceedings did not interrupt the running of the statutory period in which adverse possession can ripen into title. They claim that the statutory period ripened on July 11, 1993, eighteen months after the judgment was entered foreclosing the right of redemption relating to the tax sale.

At a hearing on a Motion for Summary Judgment, the trial court found that the tax sale and foreclosure proceedings terminated the adverse possession period relying on the law of foreign jurisdictions. The appellee asserted below that:

"[APPELLEE'S COUNSEL]: ... Maryland is silent and it is surprisingly silent that this is an issue that has never presented itself especially in light of the age and the statute as far as adverse possession...."

The appellants, addressing the trial court's stated position based on the trial court's review of foreign law, stated to the trial court:

"[APPELLANTS' COUNSEL]: ... [Y]ou are saying they got closed out. It was closed out February 14, 1992. They have to start another twenty years at that time?

THE COURT: That's what the case law seems to say.

[APPELLANTS' COUNSEL]: Okay. That's not Maryland law as it is right now.

...

THE COURT: ... Maryland really hasn't addressed this question.... If you do not step forward [in the foreclosure proceedings], the title that the State is going to give is going to be against everybody.

...

... [E]verybody that needs to come forward that has a right, can come forward with a right. Because you didn't have a right, you had nothing. So, you still have nothing. You had nothing before in `92. You don't have anything now.

[APPELLANTS' COUNSEL]: But if on February 14 you are saying that you believe that on that date because the State passed title through a tax deed, everything stopped and we start all over again?

THE COURT: That's correct.

[APPELLANTS' COUNSEL]: ... I could not find any cases in Maryland about transfer of ownership of anything....

...

THE COURT: Well, what they are trying to do in the statute is they are trying to pass clear title. Therefore, everybody who has an interest has to come forward at that time. At that time Mr. Lippert did not have an interest as you indicated because he didn't have twenty years.

THE COURT: I believe they would have a right to come in and claim if they had twenty years at that particular time. Once they did not, then the title that is passed is clear.

...

[APPELLANTS' COUNSEL]: What you are saying is the statute stops everything?

THE COURT: That's correct."

Later, appellants' counsel states to the trial court:

"July 9, 1993, if the Jungs had walked in and said get off our property, that's it.... But they didn't. They didn't do nothing. Absolutely nothing.... I don't believe the statute can stop a right that wasn't there." ²

The trial court then rendered summary judgment in favor of the appellees. Appellants appealed to the Court of Special Appeals. On our own action, by writ, we brought the proceedings before us for our review.

We note that appellants have framed the issue into a simple legal question:

Whether the 20 year time requirement under the doctrine of adverse possession is tolled by a tax sale of the real property?

II. Standard of Review

In reviewing the grant of a summary judgment motion, we are most often concerned with whether a dispute of material fact exists. Hartford Ins. Co. v. Manor Inn of Bethesda, Inc., 335 Md. 135, 144, 642 A.2d 219, 224 (1994); Gross v. Sussex Inc., 332 Md. 247, 255, 630 A.2d 1156, 1160 (1993); Beatty v. Trailmaster Prods., Inc., 330 Md. 726, 737, 625 A.2d 1005, 1010 (1993); Arnold Developer, Inc. v. Collins, 318 Md. 259, 262, 567 A.2d 949, 951 (1990); Bachmann v. Glazer & Glazer, Inc., 316 Md. 405, 408, 559 A.2d 365, 366 (1989); King v. Bankerd, 303 Md. 98, 110-11, 492 A.2d 608, 614-15 (1985) (citations omitted). "A material fact is a fact the resolution of which will somehow affect the outcome of the case." King, 303 Md. at 111, 492 A.2d at 614 (citing Lynx, Inc. v. Ordnance Prods., Inc., 273 Md. 1, 8, 327 A.2d 502, 509 (1974)). "[A] dispute as to facts relating to grounds upon which the decision is not rested is not a dispute with respect to a material fact and such dispute does not prevent the entry of summary judgment." Salisbury Beauty Schs. v. State Bd. of Cosmetologists, 268 Md. 32, 40, 300 A.2d 367, 374 (1973).

This Court also has stated that "[t]he standard of review for a grant of summary judgment is whether the trial court was legally correct." Goodwich v. Sinai Hosp. of Baltimore, Inc., 343 Md. 185, 204, 680 A.2d 1067, 1076 (1996); see Murphy v. Merzbacher, 346 Md. 525, 530-31, 697 A.2d 861, 864 (1997)

; Hartford Ins. Co.,

335 Md. at 144,

642 A.2d at 224; Gross, 332 Md. at 255,

630 A.2d at 1160; Heat & Power Corp. v. Air Prods. & Chems., Inc., 320 Md. 584, 592, 578 A.2d 1202, 1206 (1990) (citations omitted). Thus, when there is no dispute of material fact, as in this case, our review is limited to whether the trial court was legally correct. With these considerations in mind, we turn to the case sub judice.

III. Discussion

As we have indicated, for the purposes of appeal there are no material facts in dispute. The dispute is purely legal in nature—was the trial court legally correct in finding that the tax sale and foreclosure proceedings terminated the adverse possession period?

Appellants argue that the trial judge ascribed to the majority view, but that Maryland follows, or should follow, the minority view. Appellants' position, the minority view in other jurisdictions, is that a purchaser at a properly conducted tax sale acquires only the interest of the defaulting taxpayer/property owner, and that the interest acquired through the tax sale is thus subject to any inchoate interests then being perfected, such as the inchoate interests of an adverse possessor. Appellee, not surprisingly, argues that the trial court was correct.

Appellants argue that there is no Maryland case law on point. Appellee does not argue to the contrary. Both are, for the most part, wrong. It is true that there is no adverse possession case in respect to the title passed by Maryland's tax sale procedure. There is, however, a body of Maryland law, none of which was cited by either party, in which this Court, and most recently the Court of Special Appeals relying on our previous line of cases, has defined the scope of the title interests acquired through a proper tax sale and foreclosure of right of redemption proceedings. This line of cases supports the decision of the trial judge, albeit he also did not rely on those cases.

The Court of Special Appeals, citing to our cases, which we will discuss, infra, in Bell v. Myers, 28 Md.App. 339, 343, 345 A.2d 105, 108 (1975), in reversing the trial court, stated:

"The crux of the chancellor's holding is that the purchaser at a tax sale acquires no better title than was held by the person assessed. This is indeed the law in some jurisdictions but, unfortunately for the appellees, it is not the law in Maryland. In 75 A.L.R. 416, at 417, the commentator states `There are two opposing theories as to the effect of a tax sale and the nature or quantum of estate acquired by the purchaser'. One theory is that pronounced by the chancellor. The other theory, espoused by decisions of the Court of Appeals, is that:

`... [I]f the tax deed and the proceedings upon which it is based are valid, it clothes the purchaser not merely with the title of the person who was assessed with the taxes, but with a new and complete title in

...