Se eMiss. Code Ann. § 27-45-3 (Rev. 2010)
. 1 Mis s. Co deAnn. § 27-4 3-3 (Rev . 2 01 0) ( “th e sh eri ff sh allbereq

uired to s erv e p ers on al 2 no tic e as summ on s is su ed from theco urt s are serve d” ). 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 9 - CT - 0 1 1 9 1 - S CT REBUI LD AM ERICA, I

NC.
v. T IM A . NO R R IS ON W RI T OF CE RT I ORARI D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 07/ 20/ 2009 TR I A L J U D G E: H O N
. PA TR I CI A D
. W I SE COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: HI NDS COUNTY CHANCERY COURT ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLAN T: KI M BERLY PI NE TU RN ER ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLEE: STEVE YO UN GER NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - OTH ER D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 06/ 16/ 2011 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, PRES I DI NG J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶ 1
. T im N o rr is f

a ile d to p a y th e 2 0 0 5 p ro p e rty tax e s o n h is J a c k so n re sta u ra n t, so in A ugus t2006, Sas s M uni pur chas ed t he pr operty i n a t ax sa l e. A f t erN orr i s di d notr edee m the p roperty w i thin the tw o-year peri od provi ded by st atute, a t ax d eed w as i ssued t o S ass 1 M uni , w hi ch then dee ded the pr operty t o R ebui l d A m er i ca. ¶2. W hen R ebui l d A m er i ca f i l ed a s ui tt o conf

i r m t i t l e, N orr i s
— ar gui ng thathe w as never per s onal l y s erved w i th not i ce of the t ax s al e, as requi r ed by Sect i on 27- 43- 3

— m oved f or 2DeWeese Nelson Realty , Inc. v. Equity Servs. Co. , 5 02 So . 2 d 3 10 (Mi ss. 19 86 ). 3 Miss. Code Ann. § 27-43-3. 4 

### 2 s um m ary j udgm entt o have the t ax s al e se tasi de. T he chanc el l orgra nt ed s um m ary j udgm ent
a n d set th e tax sale aside , an d R eb u il d A m erica ap p ea led, argu ing t o th e C o u rto f A p p e a ls thatthe f ai l ur e t o ef

f ectper s onal s ervi ce w as e xcus abl e beca us e the s her i f fhad made a goodfaith a tt em p t t o e ffect se rvice , a n d b ec au se N o rri s re ce ived a ctua l no ti ce b y m ail
. T h e C o u rt of A ppeal s r ej ect ed thi s ar gum entand af f i r m ed the chanc el l or . W e agr ee w i th the C our tof A p p e a ls’ a n a ly sis o f th e iss u e s a s re p o rte d a t R e b u ild A m e ric a , In c . v. N

o rr is , __ So. 3d __, 2 0 1 0 W L 3 5 4 7 9 8 2 , at * 2 (M iss . C t. A p p . S e p t. 1 4 , 2 0 1 0 ). B u t w e g ra n ted c e rtio ra ri to lim it the C o u rto f A p p ea ls’ h o lding to the fac ts of this case , an d to ad d res s R e b u ild A m erica’s
re q u e st fo r re im b u rse m e n t. A N A L Y S IS ¶ 3
. S e c tio n 2 7 -4 3 -3 g e n e ra lly re q u ire s th e c h a n c e ry c ler k to p ro v id e n o tice o f tax sa le to the pr operty’ s r eput ed ow neri n t hr ee f or m s : (1) by “per s onal not i ce as summ ons i s s ued f r om th e c o u rts a re se rv e d ,” (2 ) b y “ m a il .
. . a t his u su a l stre e t ad d re ss ,” a n d (3 ) b y p u b lica tio n “ in a pu bli c new spaper of the co un ty in w hich the land i s l ocated .
. . . ” T he C ou rtof A pp eal s, ci t i ng ouropi ni on i n D eW ees e N el s on R eal t y, Inc. v. E quit

y Ser vices . Co. , s t at ed w i thout 3 q u a lifica tio n : “A ll th re e re q u ire m e n ts m u st b e m e t fo r th e re d e m p tio n n o tice to b e c o m p lete and i n acc or dance w i th t he s t atut e. ” B utthe r equi r ementof al l thr ee methods of

not i ce i s not
a b so lu te in a ll c a se s. U n d e r c irc u m sta n c e s w h e re “ th e c ler k a n d sh e riff h a v e c o m p lied w ith the dut i es her ei n pr es cr i bed f ort hem, ” the t ax sa l e m ay be conf i r m ed, even though the ow ner
neverr ece i ved ac tual not i ce of the t ax s al e. So, al though ther e may be cas es w her e the l ack

4Mis s. Co deAnn. § 27-4 5-2 7(1 ) (Re v. 201 0) (“ Th e purch aser and the h older o f t

heleg al titl e 5 un de r him

byd esc ent o r purc ha se, m aye nf orc e theli enb y bil l in ch an cer y, an d mayob tain a

de cre e for the sale of the l and in default of payment of the amount within some short time to be fixed by thede cre e. ”). 

### 3 of per s onal s ervi ce w i l l notvoi d a t ax s al e, thi s i s notone of them. T he s her i f

f di d notef

f ect personal s ervi ce as r equ i red, despit e kn ow i ng N orr i s’ s corr ectho m e add res s. ¶4. R ebui l d A m er i ca al s o ar gues t hati tis st atut or i l y ent i t l ed t o re i m bur s ementof t axes pai d f orpr evi ous year s , t ogetherw i th s t atut ory i nt er es tand penal ty. T hi s i s s ue i s not 5 pr oper l y bef

or e us , and mustbe deci ded by a s epar at e cl ai m made pur s uantt o Sect i on 27- 45- 2 7 (1). CO NC L US I ON ¶5. T he dec i s i ons of the C our tof

A ppeal s and the C hance ry C our tf orthe Fi r s tJ udi ci al D i s tr i ctof

H i nds C ounty ar e af

f i r m ed. ¶6. AF F I RM ED . W A LL ER , C . J. , C A R LSO N , P. J. , R A N D O LP H , LA M A R , K I TC H EN S, CH AN DL E R A ND P I E RC E , J J . , CO NC UR . KI NG , J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG .