I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 7 - CP - 0 1 5 5 2 - S CT RICKY SM I TH
v. J AC KS ON S T

AT E U NI VERS I T Y, J S U, DEPAR TM

ENT OF FI

NANCE & AD M I NI STRATION

AN D SECR ETARY

OFSTATE D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 08/ 08/ 2007 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. J . DE W AYNE T HOMAS COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: HI NDS COUNTY CHANCERY COURT ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLAN T: RI CK Y SM I TH ( PRO SE) AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L E E S : S AR AH E
. BE RR Y N A N CY M O RSE PA RK ES RE GI NA R
. QUI NN DAV I D SC OTT BUF ORD NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - REA L PROPERTY D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 09/ 18/ 2008 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: EN BA NC. DI CK I NSON, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. T hi s i s a cas e of t he l ef t hand not know i ng w hat t he r i ght hand i s doi ng. T he St at e of M i s s i s s i p p i a c q u i r e d l a n d a ta t a x s a l e a n d t h e n s o l d i tt o t h e p l a i n t i f f Ri c k y Sm i t h
. Th e s a me l and w as condemned by t he M i s s i s s i ppi D epart m entof Fi nance and A dm i ni s t r at i on f orthe
u se a n d b en efito f Jac k so n S tat e U n iversity . T h u s, w e h av e a d ispu te be tw ee n the p lai n ti ff and the St at e o f M i s s i s s i ppi overw ho ow ns the pr oper t y. T he C hance r y C our tof H i nds C ount y, Fi r s tJ udi ci al D i s t r i ct , gra nt ed summ ary j udgm entt o the St at e. W e af f i r m , al bei tf

or dif fer ent r easons.Ac co rdingto t hesal e, ti tleo f thes aid

land wa s to be co m e ab so lut e unle ss i t w as red eemed 1 from the tax sal e on or before August 28, 2002. Th e p urp os e o f a

ch an cer y c ler k’s Tax F orf

eit ed L an d Ce rti fi cat e is t o n oti fy theSe cre tar

y 2 of State that ce rtain l and has been purcha sed for taxes and i s availabl e to be sold. 

### 2 B AC KGR OU ND F AC T S AN D P RO CE E DI NG S ¶2. O n A ugus t28, 2000, cert ai n r eal p ropert y ( t he “Pr oper t y”) ow ned by, and as s es s ed to , the E sta te o f A . H . N o e in g e r (th e “E sta te” ), w a s so ld to th e S tate o f M iss iss ip p i fo r u n p a id t axes f orthe yea r1999. T he Pr oper t y w as notr edee m ed, t hati s , no one eve rpai d t he 1 del i nquentt axes . H ow ever , on J une 12, 2001, af t ert he t ax s al e butbef

or e i t s m atur i t y, the M i s s i s s i ppi D epart m entof Fi nance a nd A dm i ni s t r at i on f i l ed a c ondemnat i on s ui tagai ns tt he E s t at e f orthe purpos e of

a cqui r i ng the Pr oper t y f oran expa ns i on of

J acks on St at e U ni ver s i ty. T he s ui tf

ai l ed t o name t he St at e o f M i s s i s s i ppi as a def endant( w hi ch had a cqui r ed the Pr oper ty a tthe t ax s al e) , a nd no not i ce of the condemnat i on s ui tw as pr ovi ded t o t he M i s s i s s i ppi Secr et ary of St at e. ¶3. O n D ece m ber19, 2001, t he Speci al C ourtof E m i nentD om ai n ( Fi r s tJ udi ci al D i s tr i ct of H i nds C ount y) ent er ed a Fi nal J udgment( “ Conde mnat i on O r de r ”) condemni ng t he s ubj ect pr oper ty and aw ar di ng i tt o t he M i s s i s s i ppi D epart m entof Fi nance and A dm i ni s t r at i on ( “D FA ”)
. T he C ondemnat i on O r der spe ci f i cal l y s t at ed that“the r eal pr oper t y bei ng
c o n d e m n e d h e re in is fo r p u b lic u s e a n d is to b e u s e d fo r J a c k s o n S ta te U n iv e rs ity . . . .” ¶4
. D es pi t e t he f

actt ha tthe DFA h a d c on de mned the Pr oper t y ( t hati s t o s ay, had condemned t hati nt er es ti n the Pr oper t y he l d by the Est at e) , t he Pr oper t y w as i ncl uded on the H i nds C ount y C hance r y C l erk’ s T ax For f ei t ed L and C ert i f

i cat e, w hi ch w as c ert i f

i ed t o t he S e c re tar y o f S tate o n S e p tem b e r 1 0 , 2 0 0 2
. T h u s, a s o f S e p tem b e r 2 0 0 2 , D F A th o u g h t it 2

### 3

ow ned the Pr opert y thr ough c ondemnat i on, a nd the St at e of M i s s i s s i ppi t houghti tow ned the pr oper ty thr ough t he t ax s al e, w hi ch w as notr edee m ed. ¶5. O n D ece m ber3, 2003, t he D FA purpor t ed t o convey the Pr oper t y by a Speci al W arr anty D eed t o “the St at e of M i s s i s s i ppi f

ort he use and benef

i tof the B oar d of

T rus t ees of the I ns t i tut i ons of

H i gherL earni ng. ” T hi s conveya nce w as r ecor ded i n t he l and dee d
r ecor ds of

H i nds C ount y on D ece m ber8, 2003. H ow ever , the Secr et ary of S t at e l i s t ed the Pr oper ty ata t ax f

or f ei tur e s al e on A ugus t31, 2006, and the pl ai nt i f f , R i cky Sm i t h, pur chas ed a f or f ei t ed t ax l and pat entf

ort he Pr oper t y. ¶ 6
. T h e se e v e n ts le d to a d isp u te o f titl e o w n e rsh ip b e tw e e n S m ith a n d Ja c k so n S tate U ni ver s i ty. O n N ovember3, 2006, S m i t h fi l ed a compl ai nts eeki ng t o conf i r m hi s f or f ei t ed tax lan d p a ten t. T h e d e fe n d a n ts s e rv e d th e ir a n sw e rs a n d m o tio n s fo r su m m a ry ju d g m e n t. T he tr i al courtgr ant ed the def endant s ’ m ot i on f

ors um m ary j udgm entand, i n acc or dance
w i th M i ssi ssi pp i C od e S ect i on 2 9-1-85, o rder ed t he S ecret ary of St at e t o ref un d the purchase pri ce, t og et her w i t h i nter est , to S m i t h. Itis fr om this sum m ary j ud gm ent that Sm i t h ap peals
. A N A L Y S IS ¶ 7 . W e r e v ie w a tr ia l c o u rt ’s g ra n t o f s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t d e n o v o . Mille r v . R .B . W a ll O il Co. , 9 7 0 S o . 2d 12 7 , 13 0 (M iss. 20 0 7 ). A tri al co u rtm ay gran t su m m ary j u d g m en t w h ere
no genui ne i s s ues of

mat er i al f

acte xi s ta nd the m ovi ng pa r t y i s e nt i t l ed t o j ud gm ent as a
m att er o f l aw . M iss. R . C iv. P. 56 (c). ¶ 8
. O u r q u e st fo r a so lu tio n to th is q u a g m ire b e g in s w ith a re c o g n iti o n th a t th e fe e to pr oper ty al w ays abi des somew her e, al t hough i tm ay be i n abeyanc e. T hus , w e mustf ol l ow

### 4

th e fe e th ro u g h th e s e v e ra l c h ro n ic le d e v e n ts . E qui t y S ervs. C o. v. Mis s . State H i ghw ay Co m m ’n , 1 9 2 S o . 2 d 4 3 1 , 4 3 2 (M iss. 1 9 6 6 ). A d V al or em Tax Sal e i n 2000 ¶9. N o one dis pu t es t hat, p ri or t o A ug ust2 8, 2 000, the Est at e ow ned the f ee t o the Pr oper ty. B eca us e the Est at e f ai l ed t o pay the 1999 t axes due on the Pr oper t y, i tw as s ol d f or the del i nquentt axes and struck of f t o t he St at e of

M i s s i s s i ppi
. T hus , on A ugus t28, 2000, t he fee to th e P rop erty p asse d to the S tat e o f M issi ssipp i, su b ject t o the d eli n q u en t t ax p ay er’s rig h t o f re d e m p tio n as p ro v id e d in S e c tio n 2 7 -4 5 -3 o f th e M iss iss ip p i C o d e , w h ich sta tes , in p a rt: A ll su c h lists [o f la n d s s tru c k o ff b y th e tax c o llec to r to th e sta te] sh a ll v e st in the s t at e . . . a per f

ectt i t l e t o the l and s ol d f ort axes , butw i t houtthe r i ghtof p o ss e ss io n fo r th e p e rio d o f a n d su b jec t to th e rig h t o f re d e m p tio n . . . T h e lists her ei nabove pr ovi ded s hal l , w hen f i l ed w i t h t he cl erk, be not i ce t o al l per s ons i n the s ame m anneras ar e dee ds w hen f i l ed f orr ecor d. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 27- 45- 3 ( R ev. 2006) ¶10. T hi s s t atut or y l anguage cl ear l y pr ovi des t hat– e ven t hough the E s t at e r et ai ned a r i ght of pos s es s i on and r edempt i on – t he f ee pas s ed t o the St at e of

M i s s i s s i ppi on A ugus t28, 2000, and t he St at e beca m e t he “ow nerof the l and. ” S tate v. R og ers , 206 M i s s . 643, 654, 39 So. 2 d 5 3 3 , 5 3 7 (19 4 9 ). ¶11. A f

t ert he s al e and dur i ng the t i m e al l ow ed f orr edempt i on ( i n thi s cas e, A ugus t28, 2 0 0 2 ), th e S tate p o ss e ss e s “ a n in c h o a te title” to th e lan d w h ich “ m a y o r m a y n o t rip e n in to a per f ectt i t l e. ” Id
. A f

t ert he r edempt i on per i od i s over– as s um i ng the pr oper t y i s not
r edee m ed – the Secr et ary of St at e “s hal l ha ve char ge . . . of the l ands f

or f ei t ed t o t he s t at e f

or
n o n p ay m en t of t ax es.” M iss. C o d e A n n . § 7 -11 -11 (R ev . 2 0 0 2 ).Although Section 31- 11-25 actual ly uses the term “off ice of general servi ces,” Secti on 7-1- 3 45 1 p rov ide s th at, whe ne ve r theter m “o ff iceof ge ne ralser

vic es”appe ars in anylaw , th e sam e sh all m ean theDepartment of

Financ e an d A dmini strati on . M iss . Code Ann . § § 3 1-1 1-2 5 (Rev20 05 ), 7-1 -45 1 (Rev . 2 00 2). 

### 5 C ondem nat i on P r ocee di ngs i n 2001 ¶12. U nderM i s s i s s i ppi l aw , t he D FA has author i t y t o acqui r e r eal pr oper t y t hr ough
em i nen tdo m ai n p roceedings. I f the [ D epart m entof

Fi nance and A dm i ni s t r at i on] s hal l be unabl e t o agr ee 3 w i th the ow nerorow ners of any s uch land o r real pro p erty w h ich is n ec essa ry ordes i r abl e f

ort he publ i c u se i n connec t i on w i t h any s uch pr oj ect , [ t he D e p a rtm e n t o f F in a n c e a n d A d m in istra tio n ] sh a ll h a v e th e p o w e r an d a u th o rity t o acqui r e any s uch l and orr eal prope r t y by condem nat i on pr ocee di ngs i n the m annerot herw i s e pr ovi ded by l aw and, forsuch purpos e, the r i ghtof emi nent dom ai n i s her eby conf

err ed upon and ves t ed i n s ai d [ D epart m entof Fi nance a n d A d m in is tr a tio n ]. M is s . C o d e A n n . § 3 1 -1 1 -2 5 (R e v . 2 0 0 5 ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ). ¶13. T he D FA i ni t i at ed condemnat i on pr ocee di ngs a gai ns tthe E s t at e on J une 12, 2001,
w hi ch w a s a f

t e rt he f e e ha d tr a ns f

e r r e d t o the St a t e of

M i s s i s s i pp i
. Thus , a r gu e s Smi t h, D FA had the w r ong s ow by t he ea r . W e agr ee. T he f ee hol der( t he St at e of

M i s s i s s i ppi ) w as notnamed as a part y t o t he condemnat i on proc eedi ngs . B eca us e t he condemnat i on w as f i l ed agai ns tthe Est at e, D FA s t ood onl y t o acqui r e thatw hi ch w as hel d by D FA , t hati s , the t empora ry r i ght s of

r edempt i on and pos s es s i on hel d by t he E s t at e. T hes e r i ght s expi r ed on A u g u st 2 8 , 2 0 0 2 , an d the re a fte r, ne ith e r th e E sta te n o r th e D F A h a d an y inte re st o r rig h ts in the Pr oper t y. ¶ 1 4
. F u rth e rm o re , S m ith a rg u e s th a t th e c o n d e m n a tio n p ro c e e d in g w a s n u ll an d v o id b e c a u se th e S e c re tar y o f S tate w a s n o t n o tified o r m a d e a p a rty to th e p ro c e e d in g . H is
ar gum enti s base d on t hi s C our t ’ s rul i ng i n Mis s is s i ppiState H

i ghw ay Com m is s i on v. Cas ey ,“Thecircuit c ler k, or t heplaintif

f b y h is atto rney, sh allfo rthwi th p res ent su chco m plaint 4 to the cir cuit judge orcounty judge, as the cas e may be, who shall by written or der direc ted to the ci rc uitclerk fix the t ime and place for the heari ng of the matter, in term time or vacation, and the time of hearing shall be fixed on a date to all ow sufficient time for each defendant named to be served with pr ocess as is otherwise pr ovided by law, for not les s than thirty (30) day s pr io r to the he aring . If

a de fend ant, or oth er partyin interest , sh alln ot bes erv ed f or thes pe cif

ied tim e p rio r to the date fi xe d, th e he arings ha ll bec ontin ue d to a day cer

tain to all owth e thirty-day period specified.” Mi ss. Code Ann. § 11-27-7 (Rev. 2004). 

### 6 25 3 M i ss. 68 5, 17 8 S o. 2d 85 9, 86 3 (196 5), w hich st at ed thata t ax-sal e pu rchaser w as a
nece s s ary part y t o t he em i nentdom ai n proc eedi ng i ni t i at ed bef or e the r edempt i on per i od w as
o v er. ¶15. I n Cas ey , th e p la in tif f p u rc h a s e d la n d a t a ta x s a le
. Ca s e y, 178 So. 2 d at859. Pr i or t o the expi r at i on of

t he r edempt i on per i od, the M i s s i s s i ppi St at e H i ghw ay C om m i s s i on f i l ed
c o n d e m n a tio n p ro c e e d in g s . Id
. at859-860. T he H i ghw ay C om m i s s i on di d notr edee m t he ta x s a le , a n d a ta x d e e d w a s d u ly e x e c u te d a n d d e liv e re d to th e p la in tif f. Id . T h e C o u rt h e ld thatt he pl ai nt i f

f w as a neces s ary par t y t o t he condemnat i on proc eedi ngs , and s i nce he w as notj oi ned, hi s t ax t i t l e w as s uf f i ci entt o ent i t l e hi m t o enj oi n t he H i ghw ay C om m i s s i on f r om
e n te ri n g th e p ro p e rt y . Id
. at863. T he C our temphasi zed that“[ c] l ear l y C as ey notonl y had
a n in ter e st in th e p ro p e rty , b u t su c h als o en tit led h im to b e rec o g n ize d in th e e m in e n t d o m a in pr ocee di ngs . ” Id
. ¶16. M or eover , Sect i on 11- 27- 7 expr es s l y pr ovi des the m ethod of acqui r i ng pr operty by emi nentdom ai n, i ncl udi ng t he not i ce r equi r ement s . In N ew v. State H

i ghw ay Com m is s i on , 4 this C ou rtfound t hat the p urpose o f this provis i on of l aw i s “t o g i ve all persons i nt er es t ed i n the pr opert y s oughtt o be ac qui r ed by em i nentdom ai n proc eedi ngs an oppor tuni t y t o be hear d atone t i m e, s o as t o pr events ubs equentl i t i gat i on by i nt er es t ed per s ons w ho w er e notW e rejectthe plaint iff’s argum ent that, a ccording to M ississi ppi Code Annotated Secti on 5 29 -1- 1, theSe cre tar

y o f S tat e sh ould havesign ed the C on de mnatio n O rder to va lid atethetrans fe r of lan d. Con de mnatio n pro cee dings are go ve rne d b y M iss iss ipp i C od e S ection 31 -11 -25 rathe r th an Mis si ss ip pi Code Secti on 29-1-1, which concerns the sale or purchase of state-held l and. The acq uis iti on of theprope rtyat i ssu e in

thi s ca se b y th e D FAwa s n ot a purch aseor sale. Th ere fo re, it w as n ot n ece ssary t o o btain t heS ecretary of

S tat e’s signature to va lid atetheco nv ey an ce. Mis s. 

### 7 not i f i ed. ” N e w v. S ta te H

ig h w a y Co m m ’n , 2 9 7 S o . 2 d 8 2 1 , 8 2 3 (M is s . 1 9 7 4 ) (e m p h a sis added)
. T he C our thel d i n N ew th a t: [T ]he L e g isla tu re inte n d e d to se t ou t i n d e tail th e m e th o d o f a c q u irin g p ro p e rty by em i nen tdo m ai n; that the requ i rem ent of t he law thatall p art i es of i nter est b e m a d e p a rties a n d b e d u ly n o tified b y p ro p e r p ro c e ss is n o t d ire c to ry , b u t is partof t he pr ocedur e and mustbe s tr i ct l y f ol l ow ed
. Id
. ( ci t i ng Miss . P o w e r C o . v. L e g g e tt , 1 9 7 S o . 2 d 4 7 5 (M iss. 1 9 6 7 ) (em p h asis ad d ed )). A l s o, i n Missi

ssi pp iS tate H

i gh w ay C om m i

ssion v. W

est , thi s C our ts t at ed that“a c ondemner
m us tdet erm i ne, athi s per i l , t he nam es of the ow nerand ot herper s ons havi ng an i nt er es ti n,
o r lie n o n , th e p re m ise s s o u g h t to b e c o n d e m n e d
. . . [an d ] th e re a so n u n d e rly in g su c h ru le i s t o pr ot ectt he r i ghtbot h of the condemnerand of part i es havi ng a benef i ci al i nt er es ti n the pr emi s es . . . ” Miss. S tate H i gh w ay C om m ’n v. W

est , 181 M i s s . 206, 218, 179 So. 279, 282 (19 3 8 ). ¶17. W e f

i nd t hes e ca s es on poi nther e. L i ke the pl ai nt i f f i n Cas ey , th e S e c re tar y o f S tate had a c l ear“i nt er es ti n t he pr oper t y. ” P ur s uantt o t he M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed Sect i on 7- 11- 11, w hi ch enumer at es the dut i es and pow er s of the Secr et ary of St at e, the pr oper t y w as to c o m e u n d e r th e S e c re ta ry o f S tate ’s c h a rg e o n c e th e re d e m p tio n p e rio d w a s o v e r. T h is ent i t l ed t he Secr et ary of St at e “t o be r ecogni zed i n the emi nentdom ai n pr ocee di ngs . ” Cas ey , 178 So. 2d at863. I f

t he D FA had s t r i ct l y f

ol l ow ed the pr ocedur al r equi r ement s of Sect i on 1 1 -27 -7, i t w o u ld h av e n am ed the S ec retary o f S tat e a s a d efe n d an t. T h e S ec retary o f S tat e’s 5Code Ann. § 29-1-1 (Rev. 2005).

The Secre tary of State did si gn the Special W arranty Deed as required under Missi ssippi 6 Co deAnno tat ed

Se cti on 29 -1- 1 (4 ). Smith ’s re m ainingargum ents ar e w ith out m eri t. Thech an cel lor us ed theappropri ateleg al 7 standard in dete rminingsumm ary judgm ent w as a

pp rop riate. Mis s. R. Ci v. P. 56 (c) . C ase s ci ted 

### 8 refu sal t o object after th e fac t to th e C o n d em n ati o n O rde r i s o f no v alue
. H ad the S ec retary of St at e bee n not i f

i ed ornamed as a def

endant , thi s cas e w oul d notbe her e. C onvey ance by a Speci alW ar r ant y D eed i n 2003 ¶ 1 8
. T h e D F A p u rp o rte d to c o n v e y ti tle to th e In stitu tio n s o f H ig h e r L e a rn in g , b u t it c o u ld
c o n v e y o n ly s u c h title a s it h e ld
. E as t m an, G ar dner& Co. v. B ar nes , 95 M i s s . 715, 49 So. 258 ( 1909)
. I n B ar nes , this C o u rt sta ted : th e sta te c o n v e y s b y its p a ten t all th e title it h a s o f th e c h a ra c ter d e sc rib e d in the pat ento nly, b ut does notconvey a ny ot herordi f f er entt i t l e. I n other w or ds , w her e t he s t at e m akes a c onveyanc e as of s w amp and o verf

l ow ed l ands , and i s s ues i t s pat entas s uch, i tcon veys onl y s uch t i t l e as i thas as s w amp and over f

l ow ed l ands , and i f

i thas no suc h t i t l e, not hi ng pass es by the c o n v e y a n c e . If th e c o n v e y a n c e is o f a tax tit le, th e p a ten t p a ss e s a ll th e tit le the s tat e h as o f th at ch ara cter o f t it le, b u t of n o o ther. B arn es, 49 So. at258. B eca us e of t he def ect i ve conde m nat i on pr ocee di ngs , t he D FA di d not ho l d ti t l e t o the property. T hu s, D F A w as i ncap able of tr ansferri ng an y o w nershi p int eres t t o t he I ns t i tut e of

H i gherL earni ng t hr ough the Speci al W arr anty D eed, and ther ef or e the 6 Speci al W arr anty D eed w as , and i s , voi d. Sal e of For f ei t ed Tax Land P at ent

t o the Pl ai nt i

f f i n 2006 ¶1 9. B eca us e the condemnat i on pr ocee di ngs w er e i nval i d, t he St at e of M i s s i s s i ppi per f ect ed i t s f

ee a tthe concl us i on of

the r edempt i on per i od. T her ef or e, the t ax l and pat ent p u rch ase d b y S m ith v ested h im w ith t it le i n th e p rop erty. T h e tr ial co u rt ’s gran t o f sum m ary 7by Smithfo r th e p rop os iti on his owne rsh ip o f a

patent grants h im

thehighe st e viden ce o f l eg al ownership are Unit ed States l and-patentcase s whi chanalyze ori ginal tr ansfers of land from the federal government and are i rrelevant to this case. Se e Sweatt v. Corcoran , 37 Miss . 5 13 (18 59 ); Bl ed so e v. Do e ex

dem. L itt le , 5 Miss. 13 (1839)
. The statute states in pertinent part: “Before any state- held l and is sold t o any individual or 8 pr iv at e e nt ity, th irty(3 0) days ' ad va nc e n otice o

f th e in ten de d s ale sh allbepro vided bytheSe cre tar

y of St ate to t heSta te Le

gis lature, to all st

ateagen cies a nd

to a ll gov ern ing

au tho ritieswi thin th e st

ate for the purpose of ascerta ining whether an agency or governing authority has a need for the l and and for the pur

pose of ascerta ining whether the sa le of the land was authorized by law. If no agency or governing author ity within the state e xpresses in writing to the Secre tary of State by the end of the thirty- day period a des ire to use the land, then the Secretary of S tate, with the prior appr oval of the Mississ ippi Legisl ature to s ell the s tate-he ld land , may offer the l and for sale to any i ndividual or private e ntity.” Mi ss. Code Ann. § 29-1-1(4) ( emphasis added). Mississ ippi Code Annotated Sect ion 29-1-1(4) adopts Secti on 31-7-1(a) ’s definiti on of 9 agency, which incl udes universi ty. See Miss. Code Ann. § 29-1-1(4) ( Rev. 2005) and Miss. Code Ann. § 31-7-1(a) ( Rev. 2005). 

### 9 j udgm enti s , t hus , r evers ed. A ccor di ngl y, Sect i on 29- 1- 85' s r equi r ementof r ef und of t he pur chas e money i s notappl i cabl e. ¶20. J acks on St at e U ni ver s i t y ar gues t hat t he t ax pate nt i s voi d due t o t he f ai l ur e of t he S e c re tar y o f S tate to p ro v id e “ th irty (3 0 ) d a y s a d v a n c e n o tice o f th e in ten d e d sa le . . . t o a ll
s t at e age nci es ” pur s uantt o M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed Sect i on 29- 1- 1( 4)
. A s evi dence of 8 th e S e c re tar y S tate ’s f

a ilu re to d o s o , J a c k s o n S tate U n iv e rsity p re se n ts th e a ffid a v it o f its Seni orV i ce Pr es i dentf

orFi nance and O per at i ons , T r oy St oval l , w ho cl ai m ed thatJ acks on S ta te U n iv e rs ity n e v e r r e c e iv e d a n y n o tic e o f t h e s a le o f t h e s u b je c t la n d
. ¶2 1. W e f

i nd t hatJ a c ks on St a t e Uni ve r s i t y f a l l s u nd e rthe a mbi to f M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed Sect i on 29- 1-1( 4) bec ause i ti s a s t at e age ncy f ort he purpos es of

t hi s s ect i on. 9 T her ef or e , the Se c r e t a ry of

St at e s houl d have pr ovi ded J acks on St at e U ni ver s i t y w i t h a thi r tyday advanc e not i ce of

t he sa l e. T he pl ai nt i f

f , as w el l as t he Secr et ary of St at e, f ai l s t o r ebut

### 10

th is c laim . B e c a u se th e re c o rd c o n tain s n o e v id e n c e o f a th irty -d a y a d v a n c e n o tice , w e h o ld th a t th e s a le o f t h e fo rf

e ite d la n d ta x p a te n t w a s v o id a n d d id n o t v e s t titl e in S m ith
.

CO NC L US I ON ¶22
. B ec au se of

the D F A ’s and t he S ecre tary o f S tat e’s fail u re to fo ll o w statu tory
r equi r ement s , w e f

i nd t hatt he conde m nat i on pr ocee di ngs , t he Speci al W arr anty D eed a nd the s al e of

t he f or f ei t ed t ax l and pat entw er e i nval i d. T he t i t l e, conse quent l y, s t i l l ves t s i n the St at e of M i s s i s s i ppi
. T her ef

or e, w e af

f i r m t he gr antof

s um m ary j udgm entand the aw ar d of
a r ef und of $5, 695, pl us i nt er es t , t o Sm i t h. ¶ 2 3
. AFF I RM ED . S M I TH, C. J . , W AL LE R AND D I AZ , P . J J . , CARL S ON, RANDOL P H AND LAM AR, J J . , CO NCU R. EASLEY, J . , DI S S ENTS W I THO UT S EPARATE W RI TT EN OP I NI ON. GRAVE S , J . , NOT P ART I CI P AT I NG
.