Midaro Invs. 2020 v. Johnson
| Docket Number | 1702-2022 |
| Decision Date | 18 January 2024 |
| Parties | MIDARO INVESTMENTS 2020, LLC v. GLENDA D. JOHNSON, ET AL. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
1
MIDARO INVESTMENTS 2020, LLC
v.
GLENDA D. JOHNSON, ET AL.
No. 1702-2022
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
January 18, 2024
UNREPORTED [*]
Circuit Court for Baltimore City Case No. 24-C-21-000417
Zic, Ripken, Salmon, James P. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.
OPINION
Salmon, J.
This appeal concerns a tax forfeiture action. The appellant is Midaro Investments 2020, LLC ("Midaro"). The appellees are the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore City ("the City") and Glenda D. Laws ("Ms. Laws" or Ms. Johnson).[1]
On January 25, 2022, Midaro obtained a judgment in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City foreclosing Ms. Laws' right of redemption in the property that was the subject of a tax foreclosure sale. A motion to vacate or set aside the aforementioned judgment was filed by the City and Ms. Laws. The circuit court set aside the judgment based solely on the provisions of Md. Code (2019 Repl. Vol.), Tax-Property Article ("TP") § 14-847(d), which reads:
(1) If the holder of the certificate of sale does not comply with the terms of the final judgment of the court within 90 days as to payments to the collector of the balance of the purchase price due on account of the purchase price of the property and of all taxes, interest, and penalties that accrue after the date of sale, that judgment may be stricken by the court on the motion of an interested party for good cause shown
In this appeal, Midaro raises two issues, which we have reordered
(1) Did the Circuit Court for Baltimore City err in striking Appellant's enrolled Judgment under Tax-Sale Property § 14-847(d) of the Maryland Code Annotated, when the Court found there was no fraud or lack of jurisdiction, no interested party filed a motion to strike the judgment under § 14-847(d), there was no good cause shown, and the City's motion to vacate was filed prior to 90 days of Judgment
(2) Did the Circuit Court for Baltimore City err when it ruled on Appellees' Motions to Vacate without the Appellees depositing the required redemption funds necessary, prior to or simultaneously with their motions to vacate, a condition precedent, to challenge a tax sale judgment as required by Canaj, Inc., v. Baker &Div. Phase III, LLC, 391 Md. 374 (2006)?
For the reasons set forth infra, we shall affirm the judgment entered by the circuit court.
I.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Ms. Laws owned rental property known as 4610 Belair Road, Baltimore, MD ("the Property"). She did not pay the City real estate taxes due on the Property and as a consequence, the City's Director of Finance sold the Property at tax sale on July 20, 2020. The tax sale purchaser was Midaro. At the tax sale, Midaro bid $75,000 on the Property, which was approximately $102,000 less than its appraised value. But at that point, Midaro was only required to pay the outstanding taxes on the Property, which were $1,080.62, plus the auction fees.
A little over six months later, on January 28, 2021, Midaro filed, in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, a complaint to foreclose Ms. Laws' right to redeem the Property.
In March 2021, Ms. Laws learned of the foreclosure action and contacted Berman Legal Services, the law firm that represented Midaro. She was advised as to the amount she would be required to pay Berman Legal Services in order to redeem the Property. The amount due was about $2,500 representing attorney's fees, title search fees and reimbursable expenses. Ms. Laws promptly paid the amount requested and, in return, an attorney from Berman Legal Services sent a letter to the City dated March 29, 2021, concerning the Property. The letter read:
The purpose of this correspondence is to release the above referenced property of our Law Office attorney's fees, title search fees, and expenses good thru April 7, 2021. After this date, this release shall expire. Please note
the account of the above referenced property accordingly for the 2020 Tax Sale only. It is my understanding that the balance due for the 2020 taxes, if any, will be paid directly to Baltimore City upon which our Client will then receive the return of their tax sale payment, interest, and premium paid for the above referenced property. This Law Office Release Letter MUST be submitted by the tax payer to the Baltimore City Tax Sale Department. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Ms. Laws then contacted the City to find out the amount of taxes she would have to pay in order to redeem the Property. She was advised that the taxes due totaled $3,585.30.
On April 1, 2021, Ms. Laws purchased a cashier's check in the amount just mentioned and made it payable to the City's Director of Finance. She submitted this check to the City, as instructed, via a drop box outside the City's municipal building. The reason Ms. Laws did not deliver the check directly to a person at the municipal building was because the building was closed to the public due to the COVID-19 state of emergency.
When the Department of Finance received the cashier's check, it determined that the amount needed to pay back taxes and to redeem the Property was $3,604.02, which was $18.72 more than the amount of Ms. Laws' cashier's check. The City sent Ms. Laws' cashier's check back to her by mailing it to 4610 Belair Road, Baltimore, MD, which was the address of the Property on file with the Maryland Department of Assessments and Taxation ("SDAT"). Unfortunately, Ms. Laws did not receive the check because her mailing address was 5605 Old Court Rd., Windsor Mill, MD 21244 and her tenants, who lived at the Belair Road address, did not forward the check to her or otherwise alert her to the fact that the check had been returned. At that point, Ms. Laws believed that she had done everything necessary to redeem the Property.
About eight months later, Midaro learned that Ms. Laws had not paid the taxes due to the City. Midaro then proceeded with its suit to foreclose Ms. Laws' right of redemption.
On January 25, 2022, the Circuit Court for Baltimore City entered judgment in favor of Midaro foreclosing Ms. Laws' right of redemption on the Property.
Midaro, on April 5, 2022, obtained a writ of possession and attempted to evict Ms. Laws' tenants from the Property. The tenants contacted Ms. Laws, at which point she realized for the first time that the January 25, 2022 judgment had been entered against her. Ms. Laws immediately contacted the City and told it that Midaro was attempting to take her Property even though she thought she had already paid the property taxes that the City had told her were due on it.
On April 13, 2022, seventy-eight (78) days after the judgment of January 25, 2022 was entered, the City, upon learning what had happened, filed a "MOTION TO REOPEN CASE AND VACATE JUDGMENT FORECLOSING RIGHT OF REDEMPTION AND REQUEST TO SET REDEMPTION AMOUNT." That motion read, as follows:
[The City] moves this Court to Reopen the above captioned case, Vacate the Judgment Foreclosing the Right of Redemption and set the redemption amount, and for cause states:
1. Plaintiff [Midaro] purchased the property, known as 4610 Belair Road, via Tax Sale on July 20, 2020.
2. Plaintiff obtained a final judgment foreclosing the rights of redemption on said property on January 25, 2022.
3. Prior to Plaintiff obtaining a final judgment, Defendant [Ms. Laws] attempted to redeem her property.
4. Defendant contacted the Baltimore City Department of Finance and requested that they quote her a redemption amount.
5. Defendant was advised that she could redeem her property for $3,585.30 and that this amount was good through April 25, 2021.
6. On April 1, 2021, Defendant presented a cashier's check dated April 1, 2021 in the amount of $3,585.30. See Cashier's Check attached as Exhibit 1.
7. Upon processing the payment, it was determined that Defendant was quoted an incorrect redemption amount and therefore the payment was returned to Defendant on April 15, 2021 as there was not enough to redeem. See City of Baltimore Tax Sale Work Record attached as Exhibit 2.
8. The incorrect amount was not the fault of Defendant, it was an error of the Department of Finance in quoting an incorrect redemption amount. See Affidavit of Edward Scrivener attached as Exhibit 3.
9. Defendant attempted to redeem her property 9 months prior to the Judgment Foreclosing the Right of Redemption was entered.
10. This is Defendant's primary residence[2] and she should not lose her home due to an error [made by the City].
11. The City will reimburse plaintiff for fees associated with their purchase of the Tax Sale Certificate as well as fees incurred in obtaining the Judgment.
WHEREFORE, having shown good cause, Defendant, Mayor and City Council, respectfully requests this Honorable Court to Reopen this case, Vacate the Judgment Foreclosing the Right of Redemption and Set a Redemption Amount.
(Emphasis added.)
On April 27, 2022, which was 92 days after the judgment foreclosing her right of redemption was entered, Ms. Laws, pro se, filed a handwritten "Emergency Motion to
Vacate Judgment." That motion read as follows:
I am requesting a[n] exp[edited] - hearing for the following reasons.
1. My taxes for the year 2020 were paid in a timely manner (Exhibit 1).
2. The City acknowledges that my check was not processed due to their error (Exhibit 2, 3).
3. Attorney Berman [counsel for Midaro] has been notified several times via phone and mailed receipts of paid taxes that these taxes were paid. Yet he continued to pursue my home causing me harm.
4. All correspondence was mailed to my [rental] property address as opposed to my mailing address of record [which is] 5605 Old Court Road, Windsor Mill, MD 21244.
For the reasons listed above I am requesting a...
To continue reading
Request your trial