Title: Betts v. Kent County Receiver of Taxes

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DENISE BETTS, 
 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
KENT COUNTY RECEIVER OF 
TAXES, 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 574, 2006 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Kent County 
§  C.A. No. 06T-03-013 
§ 
§   
§ 
 
Submitted:  January 29, 2007 
Decided:  March 8, 2007 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 8th day of March 2007, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief, the appellee’s motion to affirm, and the record below, it 
appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Denise Betts, filed this appeal from a decision of 
the Superior Court, dated October 5, 2006, which denied her motion to 
reargue the entry of judgment against her on Kent County’s tax monition 
action.  Upon careful consideration of the parties’ respective positions, the 
Court finds no merit to this appeal.  Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of 
the Superior Court. 
 
 
-2- 
(2) 
The record reflects that Betts was the record owner of property 
situated at 104 Ironmine Road in Felton, Delaware.  On March 23, 2006, the 
Kent County Treasurer and Receiver of Taxes filed a monition action in the 
Superior Court asserting that for tax years 1992-2005, Betts had incurred an 
unpaid tax obligation in excess of $2500.  Eventually, the Prothonotary 
issued a writ of venditioni exponas directing the Kent County Sheriff to sell 
the property.   
(3) 
Before the sale occurred, Betts filed a motion to set aside the 
judgment alleging that the county tax records were not accurate.  The 
Superior Court held a hearing on the motion on September 15, 2006 and 
subsequently denied the motion.  Thereafter, the Superior Court denied 
Betts’ motion for reargument and her motion to stay the sheriff’s sale, noting 
that she had failed to present evidence to support her contention that the 
County’s tax records were inaccurate.   
(4) 
We review the Superior Court’s denial of Betts’ motion for 
abuse of discretion.1  In a tax monition action, the only way a defendant may 
avoid a sheriff’s sale of the property is upon a showing that “the judgment 
for the taxes…is paid” or “evidence of the payment of taxes” is provided to 
                                                 
1 Fitzsimmons v. New Castle County, 2003 WL 21556987 (July 7, 2003). 
 
 
-3- 
the Prothonotary within 20 days after the posting of the monition.2  Although 
Betts claimed to have paid the taxes owed, the record reflects no evidence to 
support her claim.  Accordingly, we find no abuse of the Superior Court’s 
discretion in denying her motion. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is hereby AFFIRMED. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
Chief Justice 
                                                 
2 9 Del. C. § 8723 (2006).