I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 1 3 - CA- 0 0 9 6 8 - S CT BOONEVI

LL E COLL I

S ION REPAI

R, I NC. v. C I T Y O F B O O N E V I L L E, M I S S I S S I P P I , A M UNICI

P AL I T Y OF

T HE S T AT E O F M I S S I S S I PP I AND SHELI

A G. BOLDEN
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 05/ 01/ 2013 TR I A L J U D G E: H O N . J A CQ U ELI N E EST ES M A SK TRI AL C OU RT A TTOR NEY S: BI LLY B RO NSO N TA BLER M IT C H E L L O R V IS D R IS K E L L , III COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: P RENT I S S COUNTY CHAN CER Y COURT ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLAN T: B. BRO NSO N TA BLER A T T O R N E Y F O R A P P E L L E E S : M IT C H E L L O . D R IS K E L L , III NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CI VI L - T OR T S
- OT HE R T HAN P E RS ONAL I NJ UR Y & P RO P E RT Y DAMAGE D I SPO SI T I O N : R E V E R SE D A N D R E M A N D E D - 12/ 04/ 2014 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:

B E F O R E W A L L E R , C . J. , C H A N D L E R A N D K I N G , JJ. CH AND LER, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. W hen B oonevi l l e C ol l i s i on R epai r( B C R ) unknow i ngl y pur chas ed l and thathad been
so ld fo r d e lin q u e n t m u n icip a l t a x e s, itred e e m e d the lan d an d su e d P re n tiss C o u n ty , the C ity of B oonevi l l e, and the muni ci pal t ax col l ect or , Shei l a B ol den, f orthe damages i ncurr ed f r om the fa i l ur e t o pr ovi de not i ce of the t ax s al es . B C R ar gued thati thad notr ece i ved not i ce beca us e B ol den neve rf i l ed w i th the cha ncery cl erk the l i s tof pr opert i es s ol d f

ort axes as req u ir ed b y M issi ssipp i C o d e S ec ti o n 2 7 -41 -79 . M iss. C o d e A n n . § 2 7 -41 -79 (R ev . 2 0 1 0 ).

### 2

B C R al l eged a negl i gence cl ai m underthe M i s s i s s i ppi T or tC l ai m s A ct( M T C A ) and al so ar gued thatl i abi l i ty exi s t ed underSect i on 27- 41- 79, w hi ch provides that“[ i ] f the t ax col l ect ororcl erk s hal l f ai l t o per f

or m t he dut i es her ei n pre s cr i bed, he shal l be l i abl e t o t he party i nj ur ed by s uch def aul t. . . on hi s of

f i ci al bond f

orthe actual damage s us t ai ned. ” I d. T h e c h a n c e llo r g ra n te d th e d e fe n d a n ts ’ m o tio n s to d is m is s fo rf a ilu re to s ta te a c la im
. See M . R . C . P . 1 2 (b)(6 ). ¶2. B C R appea l s the di s m i s s al of i t s cl ai m s agai ns t the C i t y and B olden, as s ert i ng t hat they may be f

ound l i abl e underthe M T C A and underSect i on 2 7-41-79 . W e f i nd thatan a c tio n u n d e r S e c tio n 2 7 -4 1 -7 9 is a s e p a ra te sta tu to ry a c tio n a n d n o t a to rt a c tio n su b jec t to the M T C A , an d that B C R stat ed a c lai m u n d er the statu te. W e fu rth er find that, w h il e B C R ’s negl i gence cl ai m i s s ubj ectt o the M T C A , no i m m uni ty exi st s. T her ef or e, w e r ever s e the g ra n t o f t h e m o tio n s to d is m is s a n d re m a n d fo r f u rt h e r p ro c e e d in g s . FACTS ¶ 3 . A c c o rd in g to B C R ’s s e c o n d am e n d e d c o m p la in t, B C R is a c o rp o ra tio n w ith its p rin c ip a l p lac e o f b u sin e ss a n d p rin c ip a l o ffic e s lo c a ted in M iss iss ip p i. S h o rtly b e fo re A p ril 1 , 2 0 1 1 , B C R h a d a tit le a b stra c t p e rfo rm e d fo r a p a rc e l o f la n d it so u g h t to p u rc h a se in B o o n e v ill e to id e n tify a n y lien s, o u tsta n d in g tax e s, o r c lo u d s o n th e tit le. T h ro u g h th e tit le
s ear ch, B C R i dent i f

i ed appr oxi m at el y $65, 000 i n l i ens , cl ouds on the t i t l e, and out s t andi ng tax e s u n d e r P P IN 1 8 5 9 : 2008 C i ty of

B oonevi l l e Taxes ; PPIN : 1859 $3, 230. 18 2009 C i ty of

B oonevi l l e Taxes ; PPIN : 1859 $4, 753. 92 2010 C i ty of

B oonevi l l e Taxes ; PPIN : 1859 $8, 287. 24 2009 Pr ent i s s C ount y T axes ; PPIN : 1859 $3, 346. 90 2010 Pr ent i s s C ount y T axes ; PPIN : 1859 $6, 098. 26

### 3

2009 Per s onal Pr operty T axes $19, 822. 89 J udgm enti n f

avorof U ni f i r s tC orp. , I nc. $17, 374. 03 L i en i n f avorof M S St at e Tax C om m i s s i on $598. 64 L i en i n f avorof M S E m pl oym entSec. C om m i s s i on $1, 593. 57 O n A pr i l 1, 2011, B C R purc has ed t he pr operty fr om F or t i s P l as t i cs , L L C ( For t i s ) , w hi ch had
a c q u ire d th e p ro p e rty in 2 0 0 4 . A s a c o n d iti o n o f c lo sin g , B C R d e m a n d e d th a t F o rtis p a y a ll know n out s t andi ng t axes and j udgm ent s , and For t i s compl i ed. ¶ 4 . B u t, un k n o w n to B C R , u n p a id p ro p e rty tax e s re m a in e d . O n Ju n e 2 2 , 2 0 1 1 , th e C ity
m ai l ed B C R tw o (2) N ot i ces t o L i enor s of L ands Sol d f

or2008 D el i nquentT axes . O ne of the not i ces r evea l ed thata por t i on of the pr operty had bee n des i gnat ed f ort axat i on purpos es as PPIN 18886. T hi s not i ce al s o show ed t hatpar cel 18886 had been s ol d on A ugus t31, 2009, to P in e H ill s L a n d s C o m p a n y , In c ., fo r $ 2 6 7 .1 9 in ta x e s d u e in 2 0 0 8 , an d th a t th e p ro p e rty coul d be r edee m ed thr ough J une 30, 2011. T he s econd not i ce s ho w ed thatanotherpor t i on o f th e p ro p e rty h a d b e e n d e sig n a ted a s P P IN 1 8 8 8 7 a n d w a s s o ld o n A u g u s t 3 1 , 2 0 0 9 , to J ames L. Shi pm an for $5, 154. 27 i n t axes due i n 2008, and thatthe pr operty coul d be
re d e e m e d th ro u g h J u n e 3 0 , 2 0 1 1 . ¶ 5 . W h e n B C R lea rn e d o f th e u n p a id 2 0 0 8 tax e s, it m a d e a d d iti o n a l in q u iries to th e C ity
r egar di ng t he t w o new l y di s cover ed PP I N num ber s . T hes e i nqui r i es r evea l ed thatthe 2009 t axes f orP P I N num ber s 18886 and 18887 w er e al s o due, i n amount s of $302. 55 and $7, 78 2. 41 , res pect i vel y, and thatthatPPIN 18886 had bee n s ol d t o J ames L. Shi pm an f or $302. 55, and PPI N 18887 had bee n s ol d t o A C C T ax Sal e Prope r t i es , L L C , f or$7, 782. 41. B C R fur ther al l eged that, as of A ug ust22 , 20 11 , the tax r ecords for the C ity a n d P rent i ss C ounty s how ed the f

ol l ow i ng:

### 4

( 1) T he C i ty’ s t ax r ecor ds f orPPIN 18886 f

orthe yea r s 2008- 2009 s how ed th a t an e x e m p tio n , g o o d th ro u g h [D e c e m b e r] 2 0 1 1 , ap p lied to th e p a rc e l. ( 2) T he C i ty’ s t ax r ecor ds f orPPIN 18887 f

orthe yea r s 2008- 2009 s how ed th a t an e x e m p tio n , g o o d th ro u g h [D e c e m b e r] 2 0 1 6 , ap p lied to th e p a rc e l. ( 3) PPIN 900017 w as cr eat ed t o r epl ace PPIN 18886. I tencompas s ed the 2 0 0 8 -0 9 tax y e a rs w ith a b a lan c e d u e o f $ 3 ,4 7 5 .6 7 ra th e r th a n th e p re v io u sly i dent i f i ed amount s due of

$262. 14 and $302. 55. ( 4) PPI N 900018 w as c r eat ed t o r epl ace PPI N 18887. I te ncompass ed t he 2 0 0 8 -0 9 tax y e a rs w ith a b a lan c e d u e o f $ 3 ,3 4 8 .3 2 ra th e r th a n th e p re v io u sly i dent i f i ed amount s due of

$5, 154. 27 and $7, 782. 41. ( 5) T he Pr ent i s s C ount y T ax R ecor ds have “ no s uch l andr ol l r ece i ptr ecor d on f i l e” f orei therPPIN 18886 or18887 f orthe t ax yea rof

2009. ¶6 . O n A u g u st 22 , 2 0 1 1 , B C R fi led a p eti ti o n for a p reli m inary injun cti o n an d tem p o rary
r es tr ai ni ng or dert o pr eventthe i s s uance of t ax dee ds and pet i t i on t o conf i r m and qui ett i t l e. T h e c h a n c e ry c o u rt d e n ied in ju n c tiv e re lief. T o p re v e n t i ss u a n c e o f tax d e e d s fo r fa ilu re to pay the out s t andi ng t axes , B C R r edee m ed the pr operty by payi ng $5, 571. 09 to sat i s f y t he 20 08 t axes, and $9 , 39 4. 67 t o sat i sf y the 200 9 taxes, i ncludi ng interestand pen al t i es. Subse quent l y, B C R f

i l ed an a m ended pe t i t i on t o qui ett i t l e and a s econd a m ended pe t i t i on t o qui etand conf

i r m t i t l e and f

orgener al damages and otherr el i ef agai ns tFor t i s , the C i ty, B ol den, and Pr ent i s s C ount y. T he s econd amended pet i t i on al l eged thatB C R had pr ovi ded th e Ci ty wi th n o t i c e o f

c l a i m u n d e rth e M T CA . ¶7. B C R al l eged that the PPIN num ber s that r ef l ect ed the out s t andi ng t axes had notbeen
m ade a partof

the publ i c r ecor d orcr os s - r ef er ence d w i th PPIN 1859 . B C R f ur theral l eged that , becaus e the C i ty and/ orPr ent i s s C ounty negl i gent l y f ai l ed t o pr ovi de publ i c not i ce of th e 2 0 0 8 a n d 2 0 0 9 ta x s a le s , B C R h a d b e e n u n a b le to d isc o v e r th o se tax sa les d e sp ite its di l i gentef

f or t s t o di s coveral l l i ens upon the pr operty i n ant i ci pat i on of c l os i ng. BC R ar gued

### 5

that , i f the C i ty ha d made the PPIN r ef er ence s a nd unpa i d t axes a partof the publ i c r ecor d, then B C R w oul d have r equi r ed For t i s t o pay the t axes as a condi t i on of cl os i ng. B eca us e the C ity n e v e r m a d e th is in fo rm a tio n a v a ilab le, B C R w a s fo rc e d to p a y th e o u tsta n d in g tax e s to avoi d the i s s uance of

t ax dee ds
. B C R pr ayed f ora j udgm enti n the amount of the out s t andi ng ta x e s , p lu s in te re s t, a n d a ju d g m e n t q u ie tin g a n d c o n fi rm in g title in B C R in fe e s im p le
. ¶ 8 . T h e C ity a n d B o ld e n fi le d m o tio n s to d is m is s u n d e r M is s is s ip p i R u le o f C iv il Pr ocedur e 12( b) ( 6)
. T hey ar gued thatB C R ’ s cl ai m s w er e s ubj ectt o the M T C A , w hi ch pr ovi des i m m uni ty f

orc l ai m s thata r i s e “outof the as s es s m entorc ol l ect i on of a ny t ax or fee. ” M i ss. C od e A nn . § 11-46-9(1)( i ) (R ev. 201 2). B olden ar gu ed thatshe w as i n the cou rs e a n d s c o p e o f

h e re mp l o y me n ta ta l l t i me s a n d th a ts h e wa s e n t i t l e d t o M T CA i mm u n i ty . At the hea r i ng on the mot i ons t o di s m i s s , B C R ar gued that , b ecause Bol den had notf i l ed the tax -sa le list a s re q u ire d b y S e c tio n 2 7 -4 1 -7 9 , B o ld e n a n d th e C ity w e re su b jec t to liab ili ty
u n d er M issi ssipp i C o d e S ec ti o n 2 7 -41 -79 , w h ich p rov ides tha t “[ i] f th e tax co ll ec tor o r clerk
s hal l f ai l to perform the dut i es her ei n pr es cr i bed, he s hal l be l i abl e t o the party i nj ur ed by
s uch def aul t. . . on hi s of

f i ci al bond f

orthe ac tual damage s us t ai ned. ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 27- 41- 79 ( R ev. 2010)
. T he cha ncery courtgr ant ed the mot i ons t o di s m i s s , hol di ng that( 1) under Bo y le v. Ma tth e ws , 196 M i s s . 833, 18 So. 2d 156 (1944) , t he C i ty and the t ax col l ect orow ed B C R no duty underSect i on 27- 41- 79, a nd ( 2) the C i ty a nd the t ax col l ect orar e i m m une f r om sui to n B C R ’s n egli gen ce clai m b ecause i tari ses f rom the assessm ent orcoll ect i on of t axes. T he cha ncery courtent er ed a f i nal j udgm entas t o the C i t y and B ol den underM i s s i s s i ppi R ule of C i vil P rocedu re 54(b). F rom that ruli ng , B C R no w app eal s. S TANDA RD O F REVI EW

### 6

¶9 . T hi s C our tr evi ew s t he g r a nto rd e ni a l o f a mot i on t o di s mi s s undera de novo
s ta n d a rd
. Scaggs v. GP C H - GP , I nc. , 931 So. 2d 1274, 1275 ( M i s s . 2006)
. W e t ake the
a lleg a tio n s in th e p lai n tif f’ s c o m p lain t as tru e , an d th e m o tio n sh o u ld b e d e n ied “ u n les s it appea r s beyond doubtthatthe pl ai nt i f f w i l l be unabl e t o pr ove any s etof f act s i n s uppor tof hi s cl ai m . ” I

d. DI S CU S S I ON W HET HER B CR S TA TE D A CL AI M UNDE R W HI CH RE LI EF CAN B E G R A N T E D . I. T h e iss u e o f lia b ilit y u n d e r S e c tio n 2 7 -4 1 -7 9 w a s p la c e d in is s u e b y c o n s e n t. ¶10. B C R fi l ed i t s pet i t i on underthe M T C A af t erhavi ng pr ovi ded not i ce of cl ai m t o t he d e fe n d a n ts . See M iss . C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -4 6 -1 1 (R e v . 2 0 1 2 ) (s e tti n g o u t n o tice -o f-c laim
r equi r ement s underthe M T C A )
. B C R ’ s pl eadi ngs i ncl uded no r ef erence t o l i abi l i ty under Sect i on 27- 41- 79; B C R f i r s tr ai s ed t he i s s ue of

B ol den’ s and the C i ty’ s l i abi l i ty under Sect i on 27- 41- 79 atthe hea r i ng on the m ot i ons t o di s m i s s . T he C i ty and B ol den di d not obj ectt o the i nj ect i on of the i s s ue i n the ca s e; r ather , they r eques t ed addi t i onal t i m e t o br i ef the i s sue, an d such br i ef i ng w as s ubm i t t ed by both part i es . A nd i n i t s or dergr ant i ng t he
m o tio n s to d is m is s , th e tr ia l c o u rt ru le d o n th e a p p lic a b ility o f S e c tio n 2 7 -4 1 -7 9 . ¶ 1 1 . T h e se fa c ts im p lica te M iss iss ip p i R u le o f C iv il P ro c e d u re 1 5 (b ), w h ich p ro v id e s th a t, “[ w ] hen i s s ues notr ai s ed by the pl eadi ngs ar e tr i ed by expr es s ed ori m pl i ed cons entof t he p a rt ie s , th e y s h a ll b e tr e a te d in a ll r e s p e c ts a s if th e y h a d b e e n ra is e d in th e p le a d in g s .” M . R . C . P. 15( b)
. I n W

eiss v. W eiss , 579 So. 2d 539, 542- 43 ( M i s s . 1991) , thi s C our thel d t hat an i s s ue , no tpl e a de d, w a s tr i e d b y c on s e ntbe c a us e the op po s i ng pa r ty p r e s e nt e d e vi de nce

### 7

and ar gum enton the i s s ue and f ai l ed t o obj ectt o i t s cons i der at i on. H er e, the C i ty and B ol den
r ai s ed no obj ect i on t o the i ssue and r eques t ed addi t i onal t i m e f orbr i ef i ng; the part i es thor oughl y br i ef

ed the i s s ue; a nd the tr i al c our trul ed on the i s s ue. W e f i nd thatthe i s s ue of the C i ty’ s and B ol den’ s l i abi l i ty underSect i on 27- 41- 79 cl ear l y w as pl ace d bef or e the
c h a n c e ry c o u rt b y th e im p lie d c o n s e n t o f t h e p a rt ie s u n d e r R u le 1 5 (b ). See Favr e Prop. M gm t . , LLCv. Cinque Bam bini , 8 6 3 S o . 2 d 1 0 3 7 , 1 0 4 3 (M is s . C t. A p p . 2 0 0 4 ). II. S ecti on 27 -41-79 a p p l i es t o m u n i ci p al t ax coll ectors. ¶12. B C R ar gues that B ol den and the C i ty m ay be hel d l i abl e under Sect i on 27- 41- 79 f or B olden’s fai l ure t o fi l e t he tax- sal e l i stw i th the chan cery clerk. S ect i on 27 -41-79 p rovi des: T he t ax col l ect ors hal l on orbefore t he sec ond M onday of M ay and on or bef or e the s econd M onday of O ct oberof

eac h year , tr ans m i tt o the cl erk of the chanc ery courtof

the county s epar at e cert i f i ed l i s t s of

the l ands s truck of

f by hi m t o t he st at e and t hatsol d t o i ndi vi dual s , s peci f yi ng t o w hom as s es s ed, the dat e of s al e, the amountof

t axes forw hich s al e w as m ade, and ea ch i t em of co st i n cide n t th ere to, an d w h ere so ld to ind ividu als, the n am e o f th e p u rch ase r, s uch s al e t o be s epar at el y r ecor ded by the cl erk i n a book keptby hi m f orthat p u rp o se . E x c e p t a s o th e rw ise p ro v id e d in S e c tio n 2 7 -4 1 -4 9 , all su c h lists s h a ll ves ti n t he st at e ori n the i ndi vi dual pur chas erther eof a per f ectt i t l e t o the l and s ol d f ort axes , butw i thoutt he r i ghtof pos s es s i on f orthe per i od of

and s ubj ect to the ri g h t of red em p ti o n ; bu t a fail u re to tra n sm ito r reco rd a li st or a d e fe c tiv e lis t sh a ll n o t a ff e c t o r r e n d e r t h e ti tl e v o id
. I f the tax col l ectoror cl erk s hal l

f ai lt o perf

or m the dut i es her ei n pr es cr i bed, he s hal l be l i abl e to the p a rty in ju re d b y su c h d e fa u lt i n th e p e n a l su m o

f T w e n ty- five D o lla rs ($ 2 5 .0 0

), a n d a lso o n h is o

ffi c ia l b o n d

fo r th e a c tu a l da m a g e su sta in e d . T h e lists her ei nabove pr ovi ded s hal l , w hen f i l ed w i th the clerk, be not i ce to al lpers ons in th e s a m e m a n n e ra s a r e d e e d s w h e n file d

fo rr e c o r d
. T he l i s t s of l ands her ei nabove r ef

err ed t o s hal l be f

i l ed by the t ax col l ect or i n M ay fors al es m ade i n A pr i l and i n O ct oberf ors al es m ade i n Sept ember , r es pect i vel y. M is s . C o d e A n n . § 2 7 -4 1 -7 9 (R e v . 2 0 1 0 ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ). ¶13. T hi s cas e deals w i th m uni ci pal ad val or em t axes . B ut C hapt er 41, i n w hi ch Sect i on 27- 41- 79 appea r s , pr es cr i bes ad val or em t ax col l ect i on pr ocedur es f orcount i es and the s t at e.

### 8

A s epar at e s t atut e, S ect i on 21-33- 63, spec i f i cal l y appl i es t o m uni ci pal t ax sa l es . Sect i on 21- 33 -63 con t ai ns si m i l ar l ang uag e requ ir ing a m un i ci pal t ax co l l ect or t o fi l e t he tax- sal e l i st
w i th the cha ncery cl erk, s t at i ng:

Sal es f orthe nonpaym entof m uni ci pal t axes , both ad val or em and f or sp e c ial im p ro v e m e n ts, sh a ll b e m a d e b y the tax co llec to r at s u c h p lac e , w ith in the corpor at e l i m i t s , as the governi ng aut hor i t i es m ay di r ect . T he s al e of r eal es t at e f orad val or em t axes and s peci al i m pr ovementas s es s m ent s and s al e of per s onal pr operty s hal l be made upon the s ame not i ce, atthe s ame t i m e, and in th e sa m e m a n n e r a s p ro v id e d b y law fo r sa les o f lik e p ro p e rty fo r u n p a id st at e and cou nty t axes. The l is t s of lands s old f

ortaxes by the m uni ci

pal i t y s ha l lb e m ad e as re q u ire d to b e m a d e b

y th e sta te a n d

c o u n ty c o llec to r, a n d

sh a ll b e fil e d

w ith the m un ici

p a l clerk w i thin tw enty days after the tax sal e, an d sha l lthere r e ma i n , s u b

j e c tt o r e d e mp t i o n f

o rth e s a me l e n g th o

f t i me a n di n th e s a me m a n n e r a s p re sc rib e d

fo r th e re d e m

p tio n o f la n d s s o ld fo r s ta te a n d

c o u n ty ta x e s, w ith the sa m e sa v in gto in fa n ts a n d

p e rs o n s o

f un so u n d

m in d . Sa id

lists s hal lhave the s am e f

or ce and e

f f ect , and c onf

erthe s am e r ightand ent i t l e the pur c ha s e rs to the s ame r e m e di e s , a s l is t s made f orde l i nq ue nt

tax e s by the s ta te a n d c o u n ty ta x c o lle c to r . Su ch t i t l e s hal l be s ubs ervi ent , how ever , t o a t i t l e acqu i red und er a s al e forst at e and cou nty t axes. O ne copy of

the l is tof

land s o s old shall

b e fi l ed w i thi n thi r t

y days of su c h sa le w ith th e c h a n c e ry c ler k o f th e c o u n ty in w h ich sa id m u n icip a lit

y is l ocat ed, and the chanc er y clerk s hal lf

i l e and i ndex s ai d l is tam on g the l and r ecords of

his count

y, as othertax s al es ar e l is t ed. H ow ever , the f ai l ur e of the cl erk s o t o f

i l e suc h l i s tas her ei n pre s cr i bed sha l l notaf f ectt he val i di ty of

s uch t ax s al e. M is s . C o d e A n n . § 2 1 -3 3 -6 3 (R e v . 2 0 0 7 ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ). ¶1 4. U nl i ke Sect i on 27- 41- 79, Sect i on 21- 33- 63 d oe s n ots t a t e tha ta m uni ci pal t ax col l ect ori s l i abl e f

ora f ai l ur e t o f

i l e the t ax- s al e l i s t . N onethel es s , ther e i s no doubtthatthe l i abil i ty p rovi si on i n S ec ti o n 2 1-41-79 app l i es t o m un i ci pal t ax co l l ect ors. T his i s becau se S e c tio n 2 7 -4 1 -5 sp e c ifica lly s ta te s th a t “[t]h e p ro v isio n s o f [C h a p ter 4 1 ] sh a ll ap p ly to a ll
m uni ci pal i t i es i n the St at e of M i s s i s s i ppi
. ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 27- 41- 5 ( R ev. 2010)
. A nd Sect i on 21- 33- 53, w hi ch pr es cr i bes the dut i es of the m uni ci pal t ax col l ect or , s t at es that“[ t ] he

### 9

t ax col l ect ors hal l col l ectm uni ci pal t axes duri ng the t i m e and i n the s ame m annerand under the s ame penal t i es as the s t at e and c ounty t axes ar e col l ect ed. ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 21-33- 53 ( R ev. 2007)
. T hi s C our thas hel d that“s t atut es on t he sam e s ubj ect , al though i n appar ent
c o n fl ic t, s h o u ld if

p o s s ib le b e c o n s tru e d in h a rm o n y w ith e a c h o th e r t o g iv e e ff e c t to e a c h .” Tu n i ca C ou n t

y v. H amp ton C o . N

at’l S u r. , L L C

IB , 2 7 S o . 3 d 1 1 2 8 , 1 1 3 4 (M iss. 2 0 0 9 ). R eadi ng the s t atut es harm oni ous l y, and gi vi ng e f f ectt o Sec t i on 27- 41- 5 and Sect i on 21- 33- 53, Sect i on 27- 41- 79’ s pr ovi s i on of l i abi l i ty f

ora t ax col l ect orw ho f

ai l s t o pr oper l y f

i l e the t ax- s al e l i s ti s a ppl i cabl e t o muni ci pal t ax col l ect or s i n addi t i on t o thos e dut i es i m pos ed by Sect i on 21- 33- 63.

I I I . B oyle v. Matt

h ew s does not precl ude B C R ’ s rec overy und er Sec t i on 27- 41- 79. ¶1 5 . T h e C ity an d B o lden arg u e, an d the tri al co u rth eld, th at, u n d er Bo y le v. Ma tth e ws , 196 M i s s . 833, 18 So. 2d 156 ( 1944) , the t ax col l ect orow ed no duty t o B C R underSect i on 27- 41- 79. W e f

i nd thatthe tr i al courtm i s i nt erpr et ed B o y le . I n thatcas e, the ow nerof a l ot p a id th e ta x e s h e o w e d fo r 1 9 3 7 . B o y le , 18 So. 2d at157. A l though no t axes w er e due, M atthew s , the t ax col l ect or , err oneous l y s ol d the pr operty ata t ax s al e i n 1938 t o cover d e lin q u e n t ta x e s fo r 1 9 3 7 . Id . S e w a rd p u rc h a s e d th e lo t a t th e ta x s a le
. I d. P er the statu tory
r e q u i r e me n t s o f

S e c t i o n 3 2 5 6 , C o d e 1 9 3 0 , th e p r e d e c e s s o rt o S e c t i o n 2 7
- 4 1
- 7 9 , M a t t h e ws tr ans m i t t ed a l i s tof

l ands s ol d atthe t ax s al e t o the cha ncery cl erk and ce r t i f i ed thatt he d e lin q u e n t ta x e s fo r 1 9 3 7 h a d p ro m p te d h im to s e ll th e lo t to S e w a rd
. Id . ¶ 1 6 . L a ter , B o y le s o u g h t t o p u rc h a se the lo t f ro m S e w a rd
. Id . B oy l e w ai t ed for the
re d e m p tio n p e rio d to e x p ire , the n p a id $ 1 5 0 fo r th e lot a n d sp e n t $2 0 0 .5 0 im p ro v in g th e lo t.

### 10

Id . Shor t l y ther eaf

t er , Boyl e di s cover ed thatthe or i gi nal ow neractual l y had pai d the t axes fo r 1 9 3 7 , m e a n in g th a t B o y le h a d o b ta in e d n o title th ro u g h th e ta x s a le
. Id . So B oyl e s ued the t ax col l ect oron hi s bond f orthe $150 pai d f

orthe l otand the $200. 50 s penton im p ro v e m e n ts . Id . A ft e r t h e tr ia l c o u rt d e n ie d B o y le r e c o v e ry , h e a p p e a le d to th is C o u rt . I d. ¶17. B oyl e ar gued that the t ax col l ect or w as l i abl e under the pr ovi s i on i n S ect i on 32 56, C o d e 1 9 3 0 , w h ich sta te d th a t “ if th e sh e riff o r c ler k sh a ll fail to p e rfo rm th e d u ties h e re in pr es cr i bed, he s hal l be l i abl e t o the party i nj ur ed by such def aul ti n the pena l s um of

tw entyf i ve dol l ar s , a nd a l s o on hi s bond f orthe actual da m ages sust ai ned. ” I d. B u t th e C o u rt
su c c in c tly n o ted th a t th is s tatu te w a s in a p p lica b le b e c a u se th e re h a d b e e n n o e rro r in tr ans m i t t i ng the t ax- s al e l i s ts how i ng thatthe l and had be en s ol d; i nst ead, “the negl i gence
w a s in th e s a le o f t h e la n d w h e n th e ta x e s o n it h a d b e e n p a id .” Id . ¶18. M atthew s al s o ar gued thatanothers t atut e, Sect i on 9925, C ode 1942, the pr edec es s or to S e c tio n 2 7 -4 1 -6 3 , s h o u ld g o v e rn th e c a s e . Id . T h a t sta tu te sta ted “ [i] f a tax c o llec to r se lls any l and af

t erhe s hal l ha ve r ece i ved the t axes due ther eon, he s hal l r ef und t o the pur chas er the money pai d and s uch s al e s hal l be voi d. ” The C our tf ound thatSect i on 9925, C ode 1942, al l ow s onl y the i m m edi at e t ax pur chas erand the ow ner t o recove ri n the eve ntof an e rr o n e o u s ta x s a le
. Id . T h e C o u rtfou n d that this st atute w as in a p p lica b le, b ec au se S ew ard
w a s n e ith e r t h e im m e d ia te ta x p u rc h a s e r n o r t h e o w n e r. Id . ¶19. I n the abs ence of an appli cable st atut e, the C our t r eci t ed and appl i ed the f ol l ow i ng comm on- l aw rul e: W h en the d u ty im p o sed u p o n an offi ce r i s on e so lel y to the p u b li c, th e fa il u re t o per f or m i t , or a n err oneous ornegl i gentper f or m ance , i s r egar ded as an i nj ury t o the publ i c and nott o an i ndi vi du al m emberof the publ i c; and an

### 11

i ndi vi dual harm ed ther eby m ay notha ve r edr es s a gai ns tthe of f i cerunl es s the ind ividu al ha d in itsu ch a d ir ec t and d ist inctive in terest as to se t him ap art f r om al l other s of

the publ i c i n r es pectt o i t , and the f actof the i nj ury does not in itse lf se rv e to m a k e o u t th e d ire c t an d d istin c tiv e in ter e st w h ich is e ss e n tial. I d. a t158. The Courthe l d thatno s t atut e appl i ed and, unde rthe comm on- l aw rul e, t he t ax col l ect orhad no l i abi l i ty t o B oyl e, s t at i ng: W h e n th e tax c o llec to r m a d e o u t an d filed th e c e rtified list o f la n d s s o ld to i ndi vi dual s , he w as per f or m i ng a dut y s ol el y f

orthe publ i c, and no i ndi vi dual m emberof

the publ i c had a ny i nt er es tther ei n apartf r om al l other s of

the p u b li c, sav e tho se w h o se lan d s w ere sold, an d th e im m ed iat e p u rc h ase rs ther eof
. A ppel l ant s h ad no i ndi vi dual i nt er es tther ei n w hi ch w as i n any w ay di f f er entordi s t i nctf

r om thatof

other s of

the publ i c; and t he factthat a p p e llan ts a fte rw a rd s e x a m in e d th e list, as a ll o th e rs c o u ld d o , an d a c ted o n it to th e ir in ju ry d o e s n o t ta k e th e m o u t o f th e ru le, f o r, if s o , th e ru le itse lf w o u ld d isap p ea r. I d . T he C our tnot ed thats t atut es had bee n enact ed i n others t at es pr ovi di ng a r emedy f orone in B o y le ’s s itu a tio n w h o is w ith o u t a re m e d y u n d e r t h e c o m m o n -l a w ru le
. I d. ¶20. I n i t s or dergr ant i ng the mot i ons t o di s m i s s , the tr i al courti nt erpr et ed B o y le t o have h e ld th a t th e tax co llec to r’s liab ili ty u n d e r S e c tio n 2 7 -4 1 -7 9 e x ten d e d o n ly to th e im m e d iate t ax pur chas erand t he ow ner . T hi s w as err oneous , beca us e B o y le di d notl i m i tl i abi l i ty under Sect i on 27- 41- 79 t o the i m m edi at e t ax pur chas erand ow ner . I n B o y le , the C o u rt h e ld th a t, beca us e the t ax col l ect orhad notvi ol at ed the t ax- s a l e l i s tpr ocedur es underSect i on 27- 41- 79, that sta tu te w a s inap p li ca b le t o the fa cts. In th e a b sen ce o f an ap p li ca b le st atute, th e C o u rt app l i ed the com m on -l aw rule and hel d that a r em ote t ax-sal e purchaser has no rem edy against a t ax coll ect or w ho erroneou sl y sol d the l and w hen the t axes on i thad been pa id, bec au se
u n d er the co m m o n -l aw rule, on ly the o w n er a n d i m m ed iat e tax -sale pu rch ase r can rec o v er. B eca us e B o

y le re lie d o n th e c o m m o n la w , B o y le di d notchange orl i m i tthe per s ons w ho m ay

### 12

s ue underS ect i on 27-41- 79 i n any w ay. S ect i on 27-41- 79 pl ai nl y st at es t hatt he t ax col l ect or “s hal l be li able t o any par ty i nj ur ed. ” W e f i nd thatB C R i s an i nt ended c l ai m antunder S e c t i o n 2 7
- 4 1
- 7 9 a n d th a tt h e tr i a l c o u r t ’ s c o n tr a ry d e c i s i o n wa s e rr o n e o u s . Be c a u s e BC R
s ta te d a c la im u n d e r S e c tio n 2 7 -4 1 -7 9 , th e tr ia l c o u rt e rr e d b y d is m is s in g th is c la im
.

I V . T he C i t y a n d B olden d o n ot enjoy i m m uni t y und er t h e M TC A. ¶2 1. T he C i ty a nd B ol de n a r gu e t ha tt he y e nj oy i mm un i ty f r om B CR ’ s cl a i m s undert he M T CA . F i r s t , th e y a r g u e th a ta n a c t i o n u n d e rS e c t i o n 2 7
- 4 1
- 7 9 i s p r e c l u d e d b y th e M T CA . S econ d, they argue t hat th ey a re im m u ne fr om l i abil i ty for f ai l ure t o fi l e t he tax- sal e l i st becaus e Sect i on 11- 46- 9(1)( i ) pr ov i des i m m un i ty for any clai m “ari si ng outof the as s es s m ent
o r c o lle c tio n o f a n y ta x o r f e e .” W e s e p a ra te ly a d d re s s e a c h a rg u m e n t. A
. A n a c tio n u n d e r S e c tio n 2 7 -4 1 -7 9 is no t a to r t a c tio n s u b

je c t to th e M TC

A
. ¶22. T he M T C A s t at es that“ [ t ] he r emedy pr ovi ded by thi s chapt eragai ns ta governm ent al ent i ty or i t s em pl oyee i s excl us i ve of any ot herci vi l act i on orci vi l pr ocee di ng by r eas on of the s ame subj ectm att eragai ns tthe governm ent al ent i ty ori t s empl oyee . . . notw i ths t andi ng the p rov isi o n s o f an y o ther law to the co n tr ary . ” M iss. C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -46 -7(1 ) (R ev . 2 0 1 2 ). C ert ai nl y, t he M T C A is the exc l us i ve r emedy f oral l t or tact i ons agai ns tgovernm ent al
e n titie s . W

a tkins ex rel

. W atkin s v. Miss. D ep’t

of Hu m an S ervs. , 132 So. 3d 1037, 1042 ( M i s s . 2014)
. A s expl ai ned i n A lexander v. T aylor , 928 So. 2d 992, 996 ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2 0 0 6 ) , b e f

o r e th e M TCA, o th e rs t a tu t e s e x i s t e d th a te s t a b l i s h e d v a r i o u s ty p e s o f c l a i ms agai ns tgovernm ent al ent i t i es . N ow , al l t or ts ui t s agai ns tgovernm ent al ent i t i es m us tbe b ro u g h t u n d e r t h e p ro v is io n s o f t h e M T C A . I d. B ut, as A lexanderr ecogni zed, “others t atut es

### 13

r emai n f oract i ons thatar e noti n t or t . ” I d. ¶ 2 3 . A lexanderin v o lv e d s trik in g ly sim ilar is su e s to th e in sta n t ca se . In th a t ca se , p ro p e rty
w a s p u rc h a s e d a t a 1 9 9 4 ta x s a le b y p a y in g th e d e lin q u e n t ta x e s fo r 1 9 9 3 . I d. at994. I n 1995, bef or e the expi r at i on of

the t w o-yearr edempt i on per i od, the t ax- s al e pur chas er s pai d the 1 9 9 4 a d v a lo re m ta x e s f o r t h e p ro p e rt y th e y h a d p u rc h a s e d th e p re v io u s y e a r. I d . L at er , the
o w n e r re d e e m e d th e p ro p e rt y b y p a y in g th e d e lin q u e n t 1 9 9 3 ta x e s . I d. B u t th e c h an ce ry c lerk fa iled a d d iti o n a lly to co llec t fro m the o w n e r th e 1 9 9 4 tax e s th a t h a d b e e n p a id b y th e tax -sa le p u rc h a s e rs a n d to re im b u rs e th e m th a t a m o u n t. I d. T h e tax -sale p u rch ase rs su ed the c h an ce ry cl erk f orr ei m bur s ementof

the 1994 t axes and otherexpendi tur es and al s o as s er t ed
n e g lig e n c e c la im s a g a in s t th e c le rk
. I d. a t 99 5 . T h e tr ial c o u rtfou n d that all the c lai m s w ere s u b je c t to th e o n e -y e a r s ta tu te o f l im ita tio n s p ro v id e d b y th e M T C A . I d. ¶24 . T h e C o u rto f A p peals dis agreed. T he C ou rtof A pp eal s hel d that , becau se al l tort claim s ag ains t go v ern m en tal en ti ti es a re su b ject t o the M T C A , the n eg li g en ce claim s w ere cov ered by the M T C A an d w ere properl y dis m i ssed un der i t s one-year st atute of l i m i t at i on s. I d. at997. B utthe C our tof A ppeal s r ecogni zed thatthe t ax- s al e pur chas er s al s o pr ocee ded
u n d e r M is s is s ip p i C o d e S e c tio n 2 7 -4 5 -5 . I d. a t 99 8 . T h at st atute se ts ou t th e c h an ce ry c lerk’s d u ty to c o lle c t ta x -s a le re d e m p tio n fu n d s , a n d p ro v id e s th a t, [ i ] f s uch cl erk s hal l negl ect , r ef us e or fai l t o depos i ts uch f unds r ece i ved by h im a s h e re in p ro v id e d , h e s h a ll b e g u ilty o f m isfe a sa n c e in o ffic e , an d in a d d iti o n the re to sh a ll b e li a b le o n h is o ffic ial b o n d to a n y p e rso n in ju re d b y h is fa ilu re to d e p o s it s u c h fu n d s in th e c o u n ty d e p o s ito ry a s h e re in p ro v id e d
. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 27- 45 -5 ( R ev. 2010)
. T he C our tof A ppeal s f

ound thatthe s ui tunder S ec ti o n 2 7 -45 -5 w as “ a c lai m that a p u b li c o ffi cial fai led to co m p ly w ith o n e o f his statu tory

### 14

du t i es, nam el y, t o p ay a d ebt ow ed b y o perat i on of the t ax sal e st atutes and speci fi cal l y those
r egar di ng r edempt i on. ” A lexander , 928 So. 2d at998. T he C our to f A ppeal s hel d thatt he
a lleg a tio n th a t th e c ler k h a d fa iled to re im b u rse th e ta x -sa le p u rc h a se rs, in d e ro g a tio n o f h is
s t atut ory dut i es , w as nota t or ti s s ue, and thatSect i on 27- 45- 5 perm i t t ed a s ui tagai ns tt he cl erk on hi s of

f i ci al bond t hatcoul d be br oughtw i thi n the gene r al thr ee- years t atut e of lim ita tio n s . I

d. at998- 99. ¶25. A s i n Alexander , th e in s ta n t l a w s u it a lle g e d tw o th e o ri e s o f lia b ili ty , o n e in negl i gence, an d one aga i ns tthe t ax col l ect orf orthe f ai l ur e t o per f

or m a s t atut ory dut y. A ccor di ngl y, thi s Courtf i nds thatB C R ’ s negl i gence act i on i s governed by the M T C A , but i t s s ui tbas ed on Sect i on 27-41- 79 i s a sepa r at e cl ai m notsubj ectt o the M T C A . Sect i on 27- 4 1 -7 9 p rov ides that “[i ] f th e tax co ll ec tor o r clerk s h all fail to p erfo rm the d u ti es h ere in pr es cr i bed, he s hal l be l i abl e t o t he party i nj ur ed by s uch def aul t. . . on hi s of

f i ci al bond f

or the ac tual damage s us t ai ned. ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 27- 41- 79 ( R ev. 2010)
. B C R ’ s cl ai m t hat the t ax col l ect orf

ai l ed t o f i l e the t ax- s al e l i s tas r equi r ed by Sect i on 27- 41- 79 i s bas ed on the t ax col l ect or ’ s f

ai l ur e t o per f

or m herof

f i ci al dut y t o fi l e t he t ax- s al e l i s tand, as i n A lexander , i s a s ui tf

orf ai l ur e t o compl y w i th a s t atut ory duty. B ecaus e i ti s n ot a t ortclai m , i ti s not g o v e rn e d b y th e M T C A . ¶ 2 6 . Th e Ci ty a n d Bo l d e n a l s o a r g u e th a t BCR i s p r e c l u d e d f r o m a r g u i n g th a t th e M TCA d o e s n o t ap p ly to its c laim s b e c a u se B C R b ro u g h t th e cla im s u n d e r th e M T C A an d sta tes in i t s br i ef that“A pp el l antagr ees thati t s cl ai m s ar e governed by the M T C A . ” They cont end thatB C R i s j udi ci al l y es t opped f r om ar gui ng thatthe M T C A d oes n ot appl y. “J udi ci al
es t oppel pr ecl udes a party f r om a s s ert i ng a pos i t i on, be nef i t t i ng f r om thatpos i t i on, and then,

### 15

w hen i tbecomes m or e conveni entorpr of i t abl e, r etr eat i ng f

r om thatpos i t i on l at eri n t he l i t i gat i on. ” Johnson v. P arkerT r actor& I

m plem ent Co. , I nc. , 1 32 S o. 3 d 10 32 , 10 37 (M i ss. 2014) ( quot i ng D ockins v. A l lr ed , 849 So. 2d 151, 155 (M i s s . 2003))
. E s s ent i al t o a f i ndi ng of j udi ci al es t oppel i s thatthe es t opped party m us thave be nef i t t ed fr om the i ncons i s t ent p o sitio n e a rlier in th e lit ig a tio n . Johnson , 1 3 2 S o . 3 d a t 1 0 3 7 . H e re , B C R d id n o t b e n e fit fro m its p o sitio n th a t th e a c tio n w a s g o v e rn e d b y th e M T C A ; a lso , B C R h a s c o n sis ten tly
a rg u e d th a t S e c tio n 2 7 -4 1 -7 9 a p p lies a n d p ro v id e s a re m e d y . T h is C o u rt h o ld s th a t B C R is notj udi ci al l y es t opped f r om ar gui ng a r emedy underSect i on 27- 41- 79. B
. Sect i on 11- 46- 9( 1) ( i ) of the M TC

A does not pr ovi de the C i t

y and Bolden w i th i m m uni t y f r om su it o n B C

R ’s n eg lig e n c e c la im . ¶27. T he C i ty and B ol den ass ert i m m uni ty f r om B C R ’ s negl i gence act i on un derSect i on 11 -46-9( 1)( i ) of

the M T C A . S ect i on 11 -46-9( 1)( i ) s t at es: ( 1) A g ov e r nmen t a l e nt i ty a nd i t s e mpl oy e e s a c t i ng wi thi n the c ou r s e and s c o p e o f th e i re mp l o y me n to rd u t i e s s h a l l n o tb e l i a b l e f o ra n y c l a i m: ( i ) ar i s i ng outof the as s es s m entorcol l ect i on of any t ax orf

ee;

. . . . M i s s . C ode A nn. § 11 -46-9( 1)( i ) ( R ev. 2012)
. T he C i ty and B ol den ar gue thatthe t ax col l ect or ’ s f

i l i ng of the t ax- s al e l i s tw i th the cha ncery cl erk’ s of f i ce i s an ac t i on ar i s i ng out of the as s es s m entor col l ect i on of t axes becaus e cr eat i ng t ax r ecor ds i s an of f i ci al duty r el at ed t o m uni ci pal t ax as s es s m entorc ol l ect i on. They poi ntoutthatSect i on 27- 41- 79 i s partof an over a l l s t a tut ory s c he me f orthe c ol l e c t i on o f

a d va l or e m t a xe s a nd c on t e nd tha tt he t ax col l ect or ’ s t ax- s al e r epor t i ng re qui r ementi s “i nt egr al t o the pr oces s of as s es s i ng and

### Th is case is distin gu ishab le from th e ca se c it ed b y th e dissent, wh ich h old s that a 1 

### lawsu it challeng ing the Internal Rev enu e Service’s den ial of a right to rede emp ro p erty 16 coll ect i ng taxes. ” T heref ore, they con t end , the tax coll ect or’ s f ai l ure t o fi l e t he tax- sal e l i st
a ri s e s o u t o f t h e a s s e s s m e n t o r c o lle c tio n o f t a x e s . ¶28. T he C i ty and B ol den admi t that thi s C our t has no t dir ect l y addr es s ed i m m uni ty f or claim s “a ri sing o u t of th e a sses sm en t or co ll ec ti o n o f an y tax o r fee.” T h ey urg e this C o u rt t o f ol l ow f eder al pr ece dentcons truing an i dent i cal i m m uni ty pr ovi s i on underthe Feder al T or tC l ai m s A ct( FT C A )
. B utthey ci t e no FT C A cas e thati s f actual l y s i m i l ar t o t his cas e. F in d in g n o g u id a n c e in th e c a se s c ited b y th e C ity a n d B o ld e n , w e tu rn to th e a c ts a lleg e d to be n egli gen tand determ i ne thatthey do no tar i se outof the assessm ent orcoll ect i on of t axes. ¶ 2 9 . B C R ’s n e g lig e n c e c laim re sts o n th e ta x c o llec to r’s fa ilu re to file th e tax -sa le list w ith the cha ncery cl erk. S ect i on 27-41- 79 i l l um i nat es t he purpos e f ort he r equi r ementthatthe t ax c o llec to r file th e ta x -sa le list. It sta tes th a t th e tax -sa le list, “ w h e n filed w ith th e c ler k , [w ill ] be not i ce t o al l per s ons i n t he s ame m anneras ar e dee ds w hen f i l ed f orre cor d. ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 27- 41- 79 ( R ev. 2010)
. Thus, the over ar chi ng purpos e behi nd the duty t o f i l e the t axs al e l i s ti s t o pr ovi de not i ce. T he r eas on the t ax col l ect orm us tfi l e t he t ax- s al e l i s tw i th t he clerk o f th e c h an ce ry c o u rtis t o p rov ide n o ti ce t o th e p u b li c o f l an d tran sfers an d to as su re the corr ectnes s of

the cha ncery cler k’s l and r ecor ds
. T hi s di s t i nct i ve purpos e of pr ovi di ng not i ce i s compl et el y u nrel at ed t o the as s es s m entand col l ect i on of t axes . A ccur at e l and
rec o rd s a re v ital t o the p rop er fu n cti o n ing o f go v ern m en t, an d the tax co ll ec tor’s st atuto ry d u ty to file th e tax -sa le list im p lica tes th e g o v e rn m e n t’s s tro n g in ter e st in a ss u rin g a c c u ra te l and- s al e r ecor ds
. Fur ther , beca us e the t ax- s al e li stis f i l ed once t ax as s es s m entand 1

### purc has ed by the Uni te d State s at a tax sa learis es out of

theas se ss me nt an d coll ec ti on of taxes. Mur r ay v. U

. S. , 6 8 6 F . 2 d 1 3 2 0 , 1 3 2 4 (8th C ir
. 1 9 8 2 ). 

### An individua l’ s right to rede em prope rty sol d at

a t ax s al e can bes ee n a s int egral ly re late d to t he a ss es sm ent

and c oll ec ti on of tax es in a w ay th at pro vid ing public n otice o f landtransfers canno t. 17 col l ect i on i s compl et e, the ac tof f i l i ng the l i s tis att enu at ed f r om the as s es s m entand col l ect i on of

t axes . B eca us e t he over ar chi ng purpos e of fi l i ng t he t ax- s al e l i s ti s t o pr ovi de not i ce, w e f

i nd thatthe t ax col l ect or ’ s f ai l ur e t o f

i l e the t ax- s al e l i s tdoes notar i s e “outof t he
a s s e s s m e n t o r c o lle c tio n o f a n y ta x o r f e e ” u n d e r S e c tio n 1 1 -4 6 -9 (1 )( i)
. ¶30. A l though notr ai s ed by the part i es , w e addr es s w hetheri m m uni ty exi s t s under Sect i on 11- 46- 9( 1) ( d) , w hi ch pr ovi des i m m uni ty f orcl ai m s “[ b] as ed upon the exe r ci s e or p erfo rm an ce o r th e fa il u re to ex erc ise or p erfo rm a d iscreti o n ary fun cti o n o r du ty o n the p art of a gov ernm ental enti ty o r em ployee t hereof, w hetheror no tthe dis cret i on b e abu sed. ” M i ss. C ode A nn. § 11- 46- 9( 1) ( d) ( R ev. 2012)
. T he M T C A pr ovi des no e xcept i on t o i m m uni t y f or
m in is te ri a l a c tio n s . L ittle v. Mis s . D ep’t of T r ansp. , 1 2 9 S o . 3 d 1 3 2 , 1 3 6 ( M i s s . 2 0 1 3 )
. “ [ A] d u ty is m in iste ria l if itis p o sitiv e ly im p o se d b y la w a n d re q u ire d to b e p e rfo rm e d a t a s p e c ific t i m e and pl ace , r emovi ng an of f i cer ’ s orent i ty’s choi ce orj udgm ent . ” W a tk in s ex re l. W atkin s v . Miss. D ep’t

of Hu m an S ervs. , 132 So. 3d 1037, 1043 ( M i s s . 2014) ( quot i ng Miss. T ran sp. Com m ’n v. Mon t go m ery , 8 0 S o . 3 d 7 8 9 , 7 9 5 (M is s . 2 0 1 2 ))
. ¶31. T hi s C our thel d i n L ittle v. Missi ssi pp iD epart

m ent of T r ansportation , 129 So. 3d 132, 136 ( M i s s . 2013) , that“[ t ] he l anguage of Sect i on 11- 46- 9( 1) ( d) r equi r es u s t o l ook att he fu n c tio n p e rfo rm e d

— n o t th e a c ts th a t a re c o m m itt e d in fu rth e ra n c e o f th a t fu n c tio n
— to det erm i ne w hetheri m m uni ty exi s t s . ” W e f ur therhel d that“w her e a st atut e mandat es t he governm entori t s empl oyees t o act , al l act s f ul f i l l i ng t hatdut y ar e cons i der ed mandat ed as

### 18

w el l , and nei t her the governm entnori t s empl oyees enj oys i m m uni ty. ” I d. ( quot i ng Mon t go m ery , 8 0 S o . 3 d a t 7 9 8 ). P lain ly , S e c tio n 2 7 -4 1 -7 9 m a n d a tes th e tax c o llec to r to a c t; the s t atut e pos i t i vel y i m pos es upon t he t ax col l ect ort he dut y t o fi l e t he t ax- s al e l i s tw i th t he chanc ery cl erk. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 27- 41- 79 ( R ev. 2010)
. Ther e i s no el ementof choi ce or ju d g m e n t. T h e re fo re , th e d u ty is m in is te ri a l, a n d th e M T C A a ff o rd s n o im m u n ity
. CO NC L US I ON ¶ 3 2 . T h is C o u rt h o ld s th a t a n a c tio n u n d e r S e c tio n 2 7 -4 1 -7 9 is n o t a to rt a c tio n su b jec t to th e M T C A , b u t a se p a ra te s ta tu to ry a c tio n , a n d th a t B C R s ta te d a c la im u n d e r t h e s ta tu te . W e f ur therf i nd thatthe M T C A does notaf f or d the C i ty and B ol den i m m uni ty f r om s uiton B C R ’s neg l i gen ce cl ai m . W e revers e t he g rantof the m oti on s t o dis m i ss and rem and the case forfur ther proceedings. ¶ 3 3 . RE VE RS ED AND RE M ANDE D. W AL LE R, C. J . , RANDOL P H, P . J . , KI TC HENS AND KI NG, J J . , CONCUR. LAM AR, J . , CONCURS I N P ART AND DI S S EN TS I N P ART W I TH S EP ARATE W R I T T E N O P I N I O N J O I N E D B Y P I E R C E A N D C O L E M A N , J J . D I C K I N S O N , P .J ., NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG . LAM AR, J UST I CE, CONC URR I NG I N PART AND DI S S ENTI NG I N PART: ¶34. I agr ee w i th the m aj or i ty that B C R can m ai nt ai n i t s st at utory act i on, but I f i nd t hat B C R ’s n e g lig e n c e c la im s a re b a rr e d b y th e M is s is s ip p i T o rt C la im s A C T (M T C A ). ¶35. T he M T C A bar s negl i ge nc e a c t i on s a ga i ns tgo ve rnmen t a l e nt i t i e s a nd thei r empl oyees ( act i ng w i thi n the cour s e and s cope of t heirem pl oym ent ) f

orany cl ai m “ar i s i ng outof t he
asse ssm en t o r co ll ec ti o n o f an y tax o r fee.” M iss. C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -46 -9(1 )(i ) (R ev . 2 0 1 2 ). “A r i s i ng outof

” i s e xcept i onal l y br oad l anguage , w hi ch I i nt erpr ett o i ncl ude cl ai m s w hi ch

### Th e federal tax -assessment ex ceptio n co ntain s lang uag e virtu ally id entical to 2 

### Mis si s s ipp i ’ s : “ Any c l a i mari s i ngin r e s pe c t o f thea s s e s s m e nt

o r c ol l e c t i ono f

anyt ax or cus tom s duty . . . . ” 28 U. S.C. § 2680(c ) ( 2012). 19 occuras a r es ul tof

the as s es s m entorcol l ect i on of t axes . T he maj or i ty f

i nds thatthe ac tof f i l i ng the t ax l i s ti s “att enuat ed f rom the as s es s m entand col l ect i on of t axes , ” and thatt he

“ p u rp o s e b e h i n d th e d u ty t o f i l e th e t a x s a l e l i s ti s t o p r o v i d e n o t i c e . ” W h i l e th o s e two s t at ement s m i gh tver y w el l be true, the s i m pl e f acti s thatthe t ax as s es s orw oul d nothave been per f

or m i ng any post - s al e dut i es i f notf orhi s duty t o as s es s and col l ectt axes agai ns tt he property at i ssue i n the fi rs tpl ace. S t at ed d i ff erent l y, B C R ’s neg l i gen ce cl ai m s here “ar i se o u t o f” th e a ss e ss m e n t o r co llec tio n o f a ta x , a n d I w o u ld fin d th a t th e y c a n n o t m a in tain th e ir neg l i gen ce cl ai m s. ¶36. I n Mur r ay v. U

. S. , 6 8 6 F .2 d 1 3 2 0 (8 th C ir. 1 9 8 2 ), th e U n ited S tate s C o u rt o f A p p e a ls f orthe Ei gh th Ci r c ui tr e

j e c t e d a na rr ow con s truct i on of the f eder al t ax- as s es s m entexce pt i on: 2 A ppel l antpr opos es a narr ow cons truct i on of the exc epti on , ar gui ng thatt ax col l ect i on ef

f or t s w er e compl et e w hen the pr operty w as conveye d t o the Un i t e d S t a t e s a tth e t a x s a l e f o rth e s t a tu t o r i l y c a l c u l a t e d mi n i mu m b i d
. He poi nt s outthathe has notchal l enged as i m pr opert he I R S’ s as s es s m entof t axes agai ns tthe Fi r es i de, I nc. H e thus ur ges the conc l us i on thatthi s l aw s ui tar i s es fro m rig h ts w h ich p o std a te th e g o v e rn m e n t’s c o llec tio n e ffo rts. A lleg e d ly , h is le g a l a c tio n w ill n o t in te rf e re w ith th e s e e ff

o rt s .

. . . W e [ cannot ] agr ee thatappel l ant ’ s cl ai m ar i s es out s i de of “the as s es s m entor col l ect i on of

t axes ” f orpurpos es of

the exc ept i on t o FT C A j ur i s di ct i on. W hen at a tax s ale p rop erty is ad jud icated to the g o v ern m en t atthe s tatu tory m in im u m p ri c e , s ee 26 U . S. C . 6335( e) ( 1) , the governm enti n ef f ectbecomes th e p u r c h a s e rs u b

j e c tt o th e s t a tu t o ry r i g h to f r e d e mp t i o n . 2 6 U. S . C. 6 3 3 7 (b )( 1 ). Ca

p ita l S a v in gs A ss o c ia tio n v. R u n n e ls , 361 S o. 2d 458, 462 ( L a. C t . A pp. 1978). T he r i ghtof r edempt i on ar i s es onl y i n connec t i on w i th the t ax l evy, a nd i s a n i nt egr al f ace tof s uch a l evy. A c l ai m f

ounded on redem pti on r i ght s i s cl ear l y a cl ai m “ ar i s i ng i n r es pectof the col l ect i on of

a t ax” w i thi n the m ea n ing o f S ec ti o n 2 6 8 0 (c).

### 20

Murr ay , 686 F. 2d at1323- 24. I w oul d appl y the s ame r at i onal e her e – B C R al l eges thatt he tax a ss e ss o r w a s n e g lig e n t in h e r p o st-ta x -sa le d u ties , b u t ev e n a c tio n s th a t o c c u r p o st-s a le
c le a r ly h a v e th e iro ri g in in o r “ a ri s e o u t o f” th e in itia l ta x a s s e s s m e n t a n d /o r c o lle c tio n . I th e re fo re c o n c u r w ith the m a jo rity tha t B C R m a y p ro c e e d o n it s sta tu to ry cla im , b u t I w o u ld f i n d i t s n e g l i g e n c e c l a i ms b a r r e d b y th e M T CA . P I ER CE AND COL EM AN, J J . , J OI N T HI S OP I NI ON.