Title: Tallage Lincoln, LLC v. Williams
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SJC-12847
State: Massachusetts
Issuer: Massachusetts Supreme Court
Date: August 19, 2020

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal 
revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 
volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical 
error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of 
Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 
Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-
1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us 
 
SJC-12847 
 
TALLAGE LINCOLN, LLC  vs.  JESSYE L. WILLIAMS & others.1 
 
 
 
Suffolk.     January 7, 2020. - August 19, 2020. 
 
Present:  Gants, C.J., Lenk, Gaziano, Lowy, Budd, & Cypher, JJ. 
 
 
Real Property, Tax lien, Tax title, Assignment of tax title, 
Foreclosure of tax title.  Taxation, Real estate tax:  tax 
taking, Tax lien, Real estate tax:  foreclosure of tax 
lien, Real estate tax:  assignment of tax title, Real 
estate tax:  redemption, Real estate tax:  foreclosure of 
right of redemption. 
 
 
 
 
Civil action commenced in the Land Court Department on 
November 10, 2016. 
 
 
A request for a finding on the redemption amount was heard 
by Michael D. Vhay, J., and a motion for reconsideration was 
considered by him. 
 
 
An application for leave to prosecute an interlocutory 
appeal was heard by John Englander, J., in the Appeals Court.  
The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative transferred the 
case from the Appeals Court. 
 
 
Daniel C. Hill (John D. Finnegan also present) for the 
plaintiff. 
Marc R. Deshaies for the defendants. 
 
                     
1 Jessie Williams, III; and George H. Wortham, Jr. 
2 
 
 
 
GANTS, C.J.  In 2011, Jessye Williams, Jessie Williams, 
III, and George Wortham (owners) failed to pay the real estate 
taxes on their New Bedford home.  As a result, the city of New 
Bedford (city) took tax title to the property in November 2011, 
pursuant to G. L. c. 60, §§ 53-54.  The owners subsequently did 
not pay their real estate taxes in 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015, 
and each year, these taxes were added to the amount due in the 
city's tax title account.  In May 2016, Tallage Lincoln, LLC 
(Tallage), a for-profit entity in the business of acquiring tax 
titles from municipalities, was the successful bidder at a tax 
title auction conducted by the city, and the city assigned 
Tallage its tax title to the property.  Later in 2016, Tallage 
initiated proceedings to foreclose (i.e., terminate) the owners' 
right to redeem the property.  The owners filed a timely answer 
to the petition, exercising their right of redemption.  In 2018, 
Tallage asked the Land Court to find the redemption amount that 
the owners would need to pay to avoid losing their home.  
Tallage requested that the redemption amount include the real 
estate taxes owed to the city at the time that Tallage was 
assigned the tax title account in 2016; the real estate taxes 
that Tallage itself had paid on the property in 2016, 2017, and 
2018; the statutory interest rate of sixteen percent per year on 
the unpaid real estate taxes and the taxes paid by Tallage; and 
3 
 
 
Tallage's legal fees.  A Land Court judge rejected Tallage's 
requested finding, ruling that the statutory scheme set forth in 
G. L. c. 60, § 52, did not permit assignees of tax title 
accounts, such as Tallage, to include their own subsequent tax 
payments in the amount required for redemption.  The judge noted 
that if the owner paid the redemption amount, § 52 assignees 
could seek to recover those payments through a lien on the 
property.  Tallage appealed from the decision, and we 
transferred the appeal to this court on our own motion.  For the 
reasons that follow, we affirm the judge's decision. 
Statutory background.  Before we discuss the matter 
presently before the court, we provide some context given the 
archaic and arcane process of tax lien foreclosure.2  Because (1) 
private homeowners are rarely represented in tax lien 
foreclosure proceedings, (2) this body of law is difficult to 
understand even for experienced attorneys, and (3) the 
complexity and opacity of this process can, and sometimes does, 
result in catastrophic consequences for homeowners, we include a 
full discussion of the tax lien foreclosure process in an 
Appendix to this opinion.  However, we briefly summarize (and 
                     
2 "For most mortals, mere mention of property tax 
administration is sufficient to make eyes glaze over and heads 
nod."  H.J. Aaron, Who Pays the Property Tax?:  A New View 56 
(1975). 
4 
 
 
simplify) it here to the extent necessary to understand what 
happened in this case. 
When a taxpayer fails to pay his or her real estate taxes, 
the statutory scheme provides municipal tax collectors with two 
primary ways to collect the taxes:  by conducting a tax sale, 
see G. L. c. 60, §§ 43-45, or by executing a tax taking, see 
G. L. c. 60, § 53.  If a municipality conducts a tax sale, it 
issues a "collector's deed" to the third-party purchaser, 
granting that party the rights to collect the delinquent taxes 
from the delinquent taxpayer and to foreclose the delinquent 
taxpayer's right of redemption in the Land Court.  G. L. c. 60, 
§ 45.  Tax sales used to be the predominant method of collecting 
real estate taxes, see P. Nichols, Taxation in Massachusetts 
358-359 (3d ed. 1938), but they have fallen out of use, except 
in a few municipalities, and have largely been replaced by tax 
takings, see Massachusetts Collectors and Treasurers 
Association, Collector's Manual, at 44, 55 (rev. 2017), 
https://www.masscta.com/sites/g/files/vyhlif3441/f/uploads 
/collectors_manual.pdf [https://perma.cc/R8DQ-TPMR]. 
When a tax collector conducts a tax taking, as happened in 
this case, the municipality obtains "tax title" to the property, 
which is best understood as legal ownership of the property 
subject to the owner's right of redemption.  G. L. c. 60, § 53.  
Following the taking, the municipality must create a "tax title 
5 
 
 
account," to which it can "certify" (i.e., add) subsequent 
missed tax payments, as well as any fees, charges, and interest 
accrued, without having to conduct another taking.  G. L. c. 60, 
§§ 50, 61.  Interest accrues at fourteen percent annually from 
the time that the taxes become delinquent until the taking, G. 
L. c. 59, § 57, and increases to sixteen percent annually after 
the taking, G. L. c. 60, § 62.  If the delinquent taxpayer does 
not "redeem" the property (i.e., pay the balance of the tax 
title account) within six months of the taking, the municipality 
can petition the Land Court to foreclose the taxpayer's right of 
redemption.  G. L. c. 60, § 65.  Alternatively, if the 
municipality does not wish to proceed against the taxpayer 
itself, it can assign the tax title to a private party.  See 
G. L. c. 60, § 2C (bulk sale of tax receivables and liens); 
G. L. c. 60, § 52 (tax title auction).  The private party can 
then take further action on the tax title account itself, 
including petitioning the Land Court to foreclose the taxpayer's 
right of redemption after the statutory six-month redemption 
period has run.  G. L. c. 60, § 65. 
Once the petition to foreclose has been filed, the Land 
Court notifies the taxpayer and advises him or her of the right 
to redeem the property and the requirement to appear and answer 
the petition by a certain date.  G. L. c. 60, § 65.  If the 
taxpayer fails to file a timely response to the petition, the 
6 
 
 
municipality or assigned private party may immediately move the 
court to enter a judgment of foreclosure of the right of 
redemption.  G. L. c. 60, § 67.  If the taxpayer answers and 
appears, the municipality or private party files a request for a 
finding by the Land Court regarding the amount of money that the 
taxpayer must pay in order to redeem the property.  G. L. c. 60, 
§ 68.  This redemption amount includes the amount of taxes 
certified to the tax title account, as well as any interest, 
costs, and fees.  Id.  In addition, costs and fees associated 
with the foreclosure action, including legal fees, are 
chargeable to the taxpayer.  G. L. c. 60, § 65.  The Land Court 
also sets a deadline for redemption.  G. L. c. 60, § 68. 
If the taxpayer does not timely respond to the petition or 
fails to redeem the property according to the terms fixed by the 
Land Court, the court may enter judgment foreclosing the right 
of redemption.  Upon entry of such judgment, the municipality or 
private party assignee takes absolute title to the property.  
G. L. c. 60, § 69.  Known as "strict foreclosure," this process 
is different in several important ways from a foreclosure by 
power of sale, which is how mortgage foreclosures generally 
proceed.  See G. L. c. 244, § 11. 
With a mortgage foreclosure, when a borrower fails to make 
mortgage payments, the lender must provide proper notice to the 
borrower and, if the borrower fails to pay the amount needed to 
7 
 
 
discharge the mortgage, the lender may sell the property at 
auction to the highest bidder.  See G. L. c. 244, §§ 14, 17B; 
G. L. c. 183, § 21.  If the property is sold for more than is 
owed on the mortgage, the lender retains the amount owed 
(including interest, penalties, and any costs associated with 
foreclosure) and pays any surplus back to the borrower; the 
borrower thereby keeps any equity in the home.3  G. L. c. 244, 
§ 36. 
Strict foreclosure, by contrast, does not involve any type 
of sale; rather, the foreclosure judgment extinguishes the 
taxpayer's remaining interest in the property -- the right of 
redemption -- and converts the municipality's or third party's 
tax title into absolute title.  G. L. c. 60, § 64.  In addition, 
the foreclosing party takes title free and clear of all 
encumbrances, including mortgages and other liens.  Id.  See 
Gaunt v. Arzoomanian, 313 Mass. 38, 40 (1943) (mortgagees lose 
their security interest in land following foreclosure decree).  
Consequently, after a strict foreclosure, the taxpayer loses any 
equity he or she has accrued in the property, no matter how 
                     
3 This is a highly simplified explanation of mortgage 
foreclosure; the reality is far more complicated.  See G. L. 
c. 244, §§ 11-17C (statutory framework regulating foreclosure by 
power of sale). 
 
8 
 
 
small the amount of taxes due or how large the amount of equity.4  
See Tallage LLC vs. Meaney, Mass. Land Ct., No. 11 TL 143094 
(June 26, 2015) (failure of taxpayers to pay municipal water and 
sewer bills amounting to $492.51 resulted in foreclosure on 
property with fair market value of $270,000). 
Although G. L. c. 60, § 69, states that entry of the 
foreclosure judgment "shall forever bar all rights of 
redemption," the taxpayer may move to vacate the judgment if he 
or she pays the redemption amount, plus interest, within one 
year.  G. L. c. 60, § 69A.  After one year, the judgment is 
final and can be vacated only upon a showing of a denial of due 
process.  See North Reading v. Welch, 46 Mass. App. Ct. 818, 
819-820 (1999). 
                     
4 Several of our sister States have determined that excess 
value from a tax taking must be made available to the taxpayer 
as a matter of constitutional law.  See, e.g., Thomas Tool 
Servs., Inc. v. Croydon, 145 N.H. 218, 220 (2000) (tax lien 
procedure resulting in equity windfall to purchaser of tax deed 
violated takings clause of New Hampshire Constitution); Bogie v. 
Barnet, 129 Vt. 46, 55 (1970) (retention of excess value by town 
amounts to unlawful taking for public use without compensation 
contrary to Vermont Constitution). 
 
In Kelly v. Boston, 348 Mass. 385, 388 (1965), this court 
considered the legislative history of the statutory scheme 
governing tax lien foreclosures and determined that the 
Legislature intended that the process result in forfeiture of 
the taxpayer's equity to the municipality.  The parties in that 
case did not raise any constitutional challenge, and we did not 
address the constitutionality of the statutory scheme.  Here, 
too, the parties have not raised a constitutional challenge, and 
we do not address the constitutionality of the statutory scheme. 
9 
 
 
Factual background.  The owners are the record title 
holders of a single-family home in New Bedford.  In fiscal year 
2011, the owners failed to pay their $2,775.64 real estate tax 
bill.  In November 2011, pursuant to G. L. c. 60, §§ 53-54, the 
city's tax collector took tax title to the home and created a 
tax title account for the delinquent balance of $2,957.16, which 
included the unpaid taxes, the fourteen percent statutory 
interest that had accrued up until the date of the taking, and 
the fees and fines associated with the taking.  Following the 
taking, interest began to accrue at sixteen percent per year.  
See G. L. c. 60, § 62.  The owners did not exercise their right 
of redemption following the taking and additionally failed to 
pay their real estate taxes in 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015.  Each 
year, the unpaid taxes were certified to the tax title account. 
In May 2016, the city conducted a tax title auction where 
Tallage was assigned the tax title account to the home.  Under 
G. L. c. 60, § 52, the municipality must sell the title "to the 
highest bidder," and the assignee is required to pay no less 
than the balance of the tax title account, which here, at that 
time, was $22,901.97:  $15,204.72 for the five years of unpaid 
taxes and $7,697.25 in accrued interest, fees, and fines.  
Tallage paid only the minimum amount required by statute -- the 
$22,901.97 balance of the tax title account. 
10 
 
 
Six months later, in November 2016, Tallage commenced an 
action in the Land Court to foreclose the owners' right of 
redemption.  The petition listed the assessed value of the 
property as $182,500.  Although the owners answered the 
foreclosure petition, they continued not to pay their real 
estate taxes.  As a result, in May 2016, 2017, and 2018, Tallage 
paid the taxes on the property, totaling $10,701.22. 
In October 2018, Tallage moved for a finding regarding the 
redemption amount that the owners would have to pay in order to 
redeem the title to the home.  The finding request for 
$44,315.68 included (a) the unpaid taxes for fiscal years 2011 
through 2015, plus the interest, fees, and fines that had 
accrued until Tallage purchased the tax title; (b) the 
subsequent delinquent taxes that Tallage paid on the property 
for fiscal years 2016 through 2018; and (c) sixteen percent 
annual interest on item (b). 
The owners did not dispute that the redemption amount 
should include item (a); however, they objected to the inclusion 
of items (b) and (c), arguing that there was no statutory 
authority allowing those sums to be included in the redemption 
calculation.  A Land Court judge agreed with the owners, 
concluding that tax payments made by § 52 assignees subsequent 
to the assignment of the tax title account created a lien on the 
property but could not be added to the tax title account and 
11 
 
 
therefore could not be included in the redemption amount.  The 
judge ordered Tallage to file a renewed motion under G. L. 
c. 60, § 68 (without prejudice to its appellate rights), 
excluding subsequent tax payments from the redemption amount.  
The judge also denied Tallage's motion for reconsideration. 
Tallage thereafter filed a renewed motion for entry of a 
finding, and the Land Court recorder issued a finding regarding 
the redemption amount on May 16, 2019, which excluded Tallage's 
subsequent tax payments and the corresponding sixteen percent 
interest on those payments.  Tallage also filed a petition under 
G. L. c. 231, § 118, for permission to take an interlocutory 
appeal, and the petition was allowed by a single justice of the 
Appeals Court.  We transferred the case to this court on our own 
motion. 
 
Discussion.  1.  Redemption amount as determined by plain 
language of statute.  Tax liens are created by statute, and a 
detailed statutory scheme, set forth in G. L. c. 60, governs 
their enforcement.  As previously noted, if the municipality 
conducts a tax taking, it creates a tax title account, see G. L. 
c. 60, § 50, and may subsequently retain ownership of the tax 
title account or assign it to a third party by public auction, 
see G. L. c. 60, § 52, or through a bidding process, see G. L. 
c. 60, § 2C. 
12 
 
 
When a municipality or third party seeks to foreclose a 
property owner's right of redemption, the process is often 
lengthy, sometimes taking years.  As a result, the real estate 
taxes for subsequent years may become delinquent while the tax 
title account is open and the foreclosure is pending.  If the 
municipality has retained ownership of the tax title account, 
the collector can certify those subsequent delinquent taxes to 
the tax title account, as occurred in this case when the owners 
did not pay their real estate taxes in 2012 through 2014.  G. L. 
c. 60, § 61.  This eliminates the need for the municipality to 
conduct another taking when it already has tax title to the 
property.  See id.  If the account has been assigned, the § 52 
assignee may pay the subsequent taxes, record a certificate of 
payment within thirty days, and thereby obtain a lien on the 
property.  G. L. c. 60, § 60. 
If a municipality or third party seeks to foreclose the 
owner's right of redemption, and the owner claims the right to 
redeem title to the property, the Land Court must, as discussed 
supra, make a finding regarding the redemption amount.  G. L. 
c. 60, § 68.  The charges that may be included in the redemption 
amount are set forth in § 68 and include "the original sum [of 
the tax title account or collector's deed], costs, interest at 
the time rate of sixteen per cent per annum and all subsequent 
taxes, cost and interest to which the petitioner may be entitled 
13 
 
 
under [§§ 61 and 62]" (emphasis added), court costs, and legal 
fees.  Therefore, the subsequent taxes paid by an assignee can 
only be included in the redemption amount if authorized by G. L. 
c. 60, § 61 or § 62. 
Section 61 allows a municipality to add subsequent unpaid 
taxes to a tax title account that it holds; it does not apply to 
accounts held by an assignee.  Section 62 applies both to tax 
title accounts assigned pursuant to § 52 and to collector's 
deeds purchased pursuant to § 45 at a tax sale.  However, § 62 
expressly distinguishes between the two, allowing § 45 
purchasers of collector's deeds, but not § 52 assignees, to 
include subsequent tax payments in the redemption demand: 
"[A property owner] may so redeem by paying or tendering to 
a purchaser [of a collector's deed], or to the person to 
whom an assignment of a tax title has been made by the 
town, at any time prior to the filing of such petition for 
foreclosure, in the case of a purchaser the original sum 
and intervening taxes and costs paid by him and interest on 
the whole at said rate, or in the case of an assignee of a 
tax title from a town the amount stated in the instrument 
of assignment with additional interest on the principal 
amount at said rate from the date of said assignment" 
(emphasis added). 
 
Therefore, the plain language of § 62 treats § 52 assignees 
differently from § 45 purchasers.  "[W]here the language of a 
statute is plain and unambiguous, it is conclusive as to the 
legislative intent" (citation omitted).  Commonwealth v. 
Wassilie, 482 Mass. 562, 573 (2019).  Tallage argues that there 
14 
 
 
is no rational reason for treating § 52 assignees differently 
from § 45 purchasers, but "[w]e do not 'interpret a statute so 
as to render it or any portion of it meaningless.'"  Volin v. 
Board of Pub. Accountancy, 422 Mass. 175, 179 (1996), quoting 
Adamowicz v. Ipswich, 395 Mass. 757, 760 (1985).  Tallage's 
interpretation would render superfluous the distinction 
specifically made by the Legislature between § 52 assignees and 
§ 45 purchasers. 
Apart from arguing that this distinction makes no sense, 
Tallage argues that § 52 assignees must be permitted to include 
their own subsequent tax payments in their redemption demands in 
order to achieve a "harmonious reading" of the statutory scheme.  
See Board of Educ. v. Assessor of Worcester, 368 Mass. 511, 513-
514 (1975) ("where two or more statutes relate to the same 
subject matter, they should be construed together so as to 
constitute a harmonious whole consistent with the legislative 
purpose").  We therefore examine the purpose of the statutory 
scheme to determine whether such an interpretation is warranted. 
2.  Purpose of statutory scheme.  From our reading of 
c. 60, two primary statutory purposes emerge:  first, to ensure 
that the municipality receives the taxes it is owed, and second, 
to protect the taxpayer's right of redemption.  In Brown v. 
Boston, 353 Mass. 740, 742 (1968), we recognized that "[t]he 
principal purpose of c. 60 is to ensure that the city will 
15 
 
 
receive the taxes owed to it," but we also recognized the 
importance of "due observance of the provisions of the chapter 
made for the protection of the interests of taxpayers."  "[T]he 
long standing policy in this Commonwealth favors allowing an 
owner to redeem property taken for the nonpayment of taxes."  
Lynnfield v. Owners Unknown, 397 Mass. 470, 473-474 (1986).  
And, because tax redemption statutes are "remedial in their 
nature," they "are interpreted liberally in favor of a person 
seeking to recover his [or her] land."  Id. at 474, quoting 
Union Trust Co. v. Reed, 213 Mass. 199, 201 (1912).  Together, 
these cases stand for the proposition that c. 60 should be 
interpreted to favor redemption and that the court ought not 
declare rights for § 52 assignees that the statutory scheme does 
not expressly grant. 
This court's decision in Snow v. Marlborough, 301 Mass. 422 
(1938), also counsels us to strictly construe the provisions of 
G. L. c. 60.  In that case, a property owner failed to pay his 
real estate taxes for multiple years following a tax taking; 
however, the municipality neglected to certify those subsequent 
delinquent taxes to the tax title account.  Id. at 426-427.  
Strictly interpreting the statute, the court held that the 
municipality could not include the subsequent delinquent taxes 
in the redemption amount due to its failure to certify them as 
required by the statute, even though doing so would have served 
16 
 
 
the statutory purpose of allowing the municipality to collect 
the taxes owed it.  Id.  Here, read strictly, G. L. c. 60, § 61, 
does not permit § 52 assignees to add subsequent tax payments to 
the redemption amount. 
Tallage makes a number of policy arguments about why this 
strict construction would frustrate the purpose of the statutory 
scheme to provide an effective and efficient means to collect 
taxes.  See Brown, 353 Mass. at 742.  First, Tallage claims that 
excluding its subsequent tax payments from the redemption amount 
would "reward" taxpayers for not paying their taxes because they 
would pay an interest rate less than sixteen percent on those 
subsequent delinquent taxes.  However, Tallage does not make 
clear how this supposed "reward" -- a lower interest rate -- 
would make tax collection less effective, where the taxes would 
have been paid by the § 52 assignee and therefore already 
collected by the town.  The purpose of the statutory scheme is 
to allow the municipality to collect "the taxes owed to it," not 
to increase the amount of interest that § 52 assignees can 
collect.  See Brown, supra.  In addition, allowing § 52 
assignees to include subsequent taxes, with sixteen percent 
interest, would substantially increase the amount that taxpayers 
must pay to redeem their properties, contrary to "the long 
standing policy in this Commonwealth" favoring redemption.  See 
17 
 
 
Lynnfield, 397 Mass. at 473.  See also Union Trust Co., 213 
Mass. at 201. 
Tallage also argues that prohibiting § 52 assignees from 
adding subsequent tax payments to the redemption amount might 
discourage them from paying the subsequent taxes.  If this were 
to happen, municipalities would be forced to execute another tax 
taking or tax sale in order to collect the taxes.  See G. L. 
c. 60, § 61 ("A city or town which has assigned a tax title held 
by it shall, after such assignment, have all the rights and 
powers to take or sell the real estate affected thereby, for the 
nonpayment of taxes, which it would have possessed had said city 
or town never been the holder of said tax title").  However, as 
noted by the Land Court judge, Tallage itself dispelled the 
likelihood of that situation, explaining that "no § 52 assignee 
in its right mind would risk a second taking" and the 
possibility of having its interest wiped out.  Far more likely, 
§ 52 assignees would continue to pay subsequent taxes pursuant 
to § 60 and would seek to enforce the resulting liens in a 
separate action if the taxpayer successfully redeemed the 
property.  Given that assignees may -- and indeed Tallage did -- 
record such liens against the property, there already exists a 
mechanism by which assignees may recover subsequent tax 
payments, contrary to Tallage's claim that inclusion of those 
18 
 
 
payments in the redemption amount is the only way that an 
assignee can recover them. 
Tallage also draws comparisons among different provisions 
of the statutory scheme to explain why allowing § 52 assignees 
to include their subsequent tax payments in the redemption 
amount would lead to a "harmonious reading."  Tallage argues 
that because "[t]he issuance of tax payment certificates by the 
collector to assignees under [G. L. c. 60, § 60,] parallels the 
certification procedures under [G. L. c. 60, § 61,] . . . 
certified payments made by assignees should therefore be treated 
no differently than subsequent unpaid taxes 'certified' to a tax 
title account under [G. L. c. 60, § 61]."  But this argument 
ignores a critical practical distinction between municipalities 
holding a tax title account and § 52 assignees:  municipalities 
are accountable to their constituents, but assignees are 
accountable only to their investors or shareholders. 
When municipalities proceed against delinquent taxpayers 
themselves, the statutory scheme provides a number of mechanisms 
to facilitate redemption and allow taxpayers to keep their 
homes.  Municipalities can agree to reduce the interest owed by 
taxpayers and to structure payment plans.  See G. L. c. 60, 
§ 62A.  They may apply to the Commissioner of Revenue to reduce 
the principal amount owed.  See G. L. c. 58, § 8.  
Municipalities can also create their own programs aimed at 
19 
 
 
protecting vulnerable citizens.  See G. L. c. 59, § 5K (granting 
authority to municipalities to enact programs for senior 
citizens to provide volunteer services in exchange for real 
estate tax abatement).  These proceedings are "conducted within 
the political process and, much like a District Attorney's 
office, with a large measure of discretion, cognizant of special 
circumstances."  Tallage LLC vs. Meaney, Mass. Land Ct., No. 11 
TL 143094, supra. 
But once a municipality assigns its interest in a property 
to a private party, it relinquishes its ability to work with 
taxpayers and loses control over the outcome of the proceedings.  
Section 52 assignees are not beholden to any political process 
and have no obligation or incentive to act in the best interests 
of the community; "[s]uch entities are responsible to their 
investors, not the citizens of a city or town."  Id.  
"Maximizing return on investment may not include accommodation 
to individual circumstance to the same extent a municipality, 
acting for itself, might otherwise deem warranted."  Id. 
For example, in Tallage LLC vs. Meaney, Mass. Land Ct., No. 
11 TL 143094, supra, a family in the midst of numerous health 
crises failed to pay a $492.51 water and sewer charge, assuming 
that the mortgage company would pay the bill out of the escrow 
account.  The municipality conducted a tax sale, and Tallage 
purchased the collector's deed at auction for $1,052.84.  Id.  
20 
 
 
The family did not file an answer to Tallage's foreclosure 
petition because they did not understand the ramifications of 
the notices; their mortgage company did not file an answer due 
to a clerical error.  Id.  Tallage obtained a default judgment 
for absolute title to the property, which had a fair market 
value of $270,000, and sold it three weeks later to another 
company for $150,000.  Id.  When the family sought to vacate the 
default judgment under G. L. c. 60, § 69A, which gives the court 
discretion to vacate tax lien foreclosures within one year of 
judgment, Tallage argued, albeit unsuccessfully, that its sale 
of the property cut off the one-year statutory period during 
which taxpayers can move to vacate a foreclosure judgment.  Id. 
The risk that § 52 assignees might use such aggressive 
tactics and undermine "the provisions of the chapter made for 
the protection of the interests of taxpayers," Brown, 353 Mass. 
at 742, leads us to the conclusion that treating municipalities 
and § 52 assignees differently is in fact the more harmonious 
reading of the statutory scheme.  Given the long-standing policy 
of the Commonwealth to favor redemption, we decline to grant 
§ 52 assignees rights not expressly granted by the statutory 
scheme where such a grant would increase the redemption amount 
and thereby create a greater obstacle to taxpayer redemption. 
Conclusion.  We affirm the Land Court judge's denial of 
Tallage's finding request and hold that the statutory scheme 
21 
 
 
does not permit § 52 assignees of tax title accounts to include 
their own subsequent tax payments, and interest thereon, in 
their redemption demands. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
So ordered.
 
 
Appendix. 
As is common throughout the United States, real estate 
taxes in the Commonwealth are imposed at the local level by the 
city or town where the property is located.  G. L. c. 59, § 2A.  
There are four main steps in real estate tax administration:  
first, the municipality's assessor identifies taxable 
properties, G. L. c. 59, § 2; second, the assessor determines 
the value of those properties, G. L. c. 59, §§ 2A, 38; third, 
the assessor sets the tax rate to be applied to the value of 
different types of properties, G. L. c. 59, § 23A; and fourth, 
the municipality's collector of taxes (collector) collects the 
taxes, G. L. c. 60, § 2.  Where the taxpayer fails to pay the 
taxes that are due, a complex statutory scheme governs the 
collection of municipal taxes.  Because the statutes are so 
complex and because taxpayers often attempt to navigate the 
collection process without the benefit of counsel, sometimes to 
their detriment, we attempt in this Appendix to explain the 
statutory scheme and the collection process. 
1.  Demand for taxes.  The collector first prepares and 
sends a tax bill to each person assessed, receives the payments, 
and accounts for them.  G. L. c. 60, §§ 2, 3, 6-7.  Payment is 
due within thirty days of the bill date.  G. L. c. 59, § 57.  If 
a tax bill remains unpaid on the thirty-first day, interest 
begins to accrue on the amount outstanding at fourteen percent 
2 
 
 
annually, retroactive to the date of the bill.  Id.  The 
collector then mails a formal demand for payment of the overdue 
taxes to the last, best address of the owner of record.  G. L. 
c. 60, § 16.  The demand letter is usually just an updated tax 
bill with the interest added, as well as any fees associated 
with sending the demand.  G. L. c. 60, §§ 15-16.  The demand 
contains no mention of the potentially dire consequences of 
nonresponse.  Nor does it matter to the validity of any 
subsequent tax proceedings whether the owner actually receives 
the demand.  G. L. c. 60, § 16. 
If the owner refuses or neglects to pay the taxes within 
fourteen days after demand has been made, the collector has a 
number of different options for collecting the delinquent taxes, 
including the following:  taking or selling the real estate 
property, G. L. c. 60, § 37; seizing and selling the owner's 
personal property, G. L. c. 60, §§ 24-29; arresting the owner, 
G. L. c. 60, § 29; suing the owner, G. L. c. 60, § 35; 
withholding payment of any money owed to the owner, G. L. c. 60, 
§ 93; and denying or revoking certain local licenses or permits, 
G. L. c. 40, § 57.  The choice of which remedy to pursue belongs 
to the collector, and multiple remedies may be pursued 
simultaneously.  See Boston v. Turner, 201 Mass. 190, 197 (1909) 
("The remedies which the statutes provide for the collection of 
a tax are cumulative.  The tax collector is not bound at his 
3 
 
 
peril to select and pursue a single one").  Most commonly, 
however, the collector will seek payment of the unpaid taxes by 
a taking or sale of the taxpayer's real estate property. 
2.  Perfection of tax liens.  To understand a tax taking or 
sale, one must first understand a tax lien.  A lien is a formal 
record of a debt, combined with a security interest in the 
property.  In turn, a security interest is a legal right of the 
entity to whom money is owed, in this case the municipality, to 
take remedial action with respect to the property if the debt is 
not paid. 
Once taxes are assessed on a property, a lien arises 
automatically, giving the municipality a security interest in 
the property.  G. L. c. 60, § 37 ("Taxes assessed upon land 
. . . shall with all incidental charges and fees be a lien 
thereon from January first in the year of assessment . . .").  
See Hanna v. Framingham, 60 Mass. App. Ct. 420, 425 (2004) ("the 
town's lien securing payment of real estate taxes arises 
automatically").  The lien secures payment not only of the real 
estate taxes, but also of other municipal charges connected to 
the property, such as water and sewer fees.  See G. L. c. 60, 
§ 43 (definition of taxes).  And the lien takes priority over 
all other liens and claims on the property, including mortgages, 
see Gaunt v. Arzoomanian, 313 Mass. 38, 39-40 (1943), and 
Federal tax liens, see 26 U.S.C. § 6323(b)(6). 
4 
 
 
The lien terminates when the taxes are paid.  G. L. c. 60, 
§ 23.  If the taxes remain unpaid, the lien continues 
indefinitely as long as the assessed owner continues to own the 
property.  G. L. c. 60, § 37.  But if the property is sold, the 
lien expires three years and six months from the end of the 
fiscal year when the taxes were assessed.1  Id. 
Once the formal demand to pay overdue taxes has been sent 
and fourteen days have gone by without payment of the taxes, 
G. L. c. 60, § 17, the collector can take action to preserve, or 
"perfect," the lien either by executing a tax taking, G. L. 
c. 60, §§ 53-54, or, less commonly, a tax sale, G. L. c. 60, 
§§ 43-45.  Either of these processes, described in detail infra, 
ensures that the lien will remain on the property regardless of 
a change in ownership. 
3.  Tax taking.  Tax takings are the most common way that 
municipalities in the Commonwealth collect delinquent real 
estate taxes.  See Massachusetts Collectors and Treasurers 
Association, Collector's Manual, at 44 (rev. 2017), https://www 
.masscta.com/sites/mcta/files/uploads/collectors_manual.pdf 
[https://perma.cc/R8DQ-TPMR]. 
                     
1 For example, for taxes assessed in fiscal year 2019, which 
ran from July 1, 2018 to June 30, 2019, the lien expires on 
December 31, 2022, if the property is sold before the tax 
collector takes steps to perfect the lien. 
5 
 
 
a.  Notice of taking.  The first step in a tax taking is 
the notice of taking.  G. L. c. 60, § 53.  The collector 
prepares a notice that states the time and place at which the 
taking will occur and that includes a description of the 
property, the year and amount of the delinquent taxes, the name 
of the assessed owner of the property, and any subsequent owners 
of the property.  G. L. c. 60, §§ 40, 53.  At least fourteen 
days before the taking is to occur, this notice must be 
published in a local newspaper and posted in "two or more 
convenient and public places."  G. L. c. 60, § 53.  As an 
alternative to newspaper publication, the collector can 
personally serve notice of the taking on the owner in the same 
manner as that required for service of subpoenas.  Id.  See 
G. L. c. 233, § 2.  However, according to the Massachusetts 
Collectors and Treasurers Association, collectors generally do 
not conduct personal service "because of the expense involved 
and the increased chance of an error that could invalidate the 
taking."  Collector's Manual, supra at 45.  Consequently, owners 
are unlikely to receive actual notice of an impending taking, 
unless they happen to read the legal notices in the local 
newspaper or pass by one of the public postings.  And even if an 
owner did chance upon a notice of taking, the document -- State 
Tax Form 300 -- is formalistic and devoid of any mention that 
6 
 
 
the owner risks losing his or her home and all of the equity in 
it. 
b.  Taking.  At the designated time and place, the 
collector announces that he or she is taking the property for 
the municipality.  G. L. c. 60, § 53.  At this point, two things 
happen.  First, the municipality takes tax title to the 
property, and the delinquent taxpayer is left with only a right 
of redemption, discussed infra.  Id.  Second, the already 
substantial fourteen percent annual interest rate on the overdue 
taxes increases to a sixteen percent annual interest rate, G. L. 
c. 60, § 62, which, as noted by the judge in this case, is "only 
400 basis points shy of the rate that triggers the 
Commonwealth's criminal usury statute, G. L. c. 271, § 49." 
The statute speaks of tax title as "security for the 
repayment of [overdue] taxes," G. L. c. 60, § 54, but in 
practice, taking tax title effectively transfers control of the 
property from the delinquent taxpayer to the city or town.  
After taking tax title, the municipality can "take immediate 
possession" of the property.  G. L. c. 60, § 53.  If the 
property generates rent or other income, the municipality can 
keep the money.  Id.  The municipality is not liable to the 
delinquent taxpayer for any damage that occurs during its 
possession of the property.  Id.  And the municipality even 
assumes some duties for the care and maintenance of the 
7 
 
 
property.  See G. L. c. 60, § 77; Milford v. Boyd, 434 Mass. 
754, 759-760 (2001) (town liable for common area expenses 
following tax taking); Kurtigian v. Worcester, 348 Mass. 284, 
287-289 (1965) (city liable for injuries resulting from private 
nuisance on property following tax taking). 
c.  Instrument of taking.  After the taking, the collector 
must record an instrument of taking within sixty days.  G. L. 
c. 60, § 54.  The instrument of taking -- State Tax Form 301 -- 
is substantially similar to the notice of taking in that it 
states the cause of the taking (i.e., overdue taxes), describes 
the property, and provides information regarding the name of the 
person assessed and the amount of the taxes, interest, and 
charges up to the date of taking.  Also, as with the notice of 
taking (and the demand for overdue taxes), it provides no 
information regarding the practical consequences of the taking, 
nor does it inform the delinquent taxpayer of the right of 
redemption or how one might undertake the process of regaining 
title to the property. 
d.  Tax title account.  Upon completion of a tax taking, 
responsibility for collection of the delinquent taxes transfers 
to the town's treasurer, who must set up a tax title account for 
the property.  G. L. c. 60, § 50.  The tax title account is a 
receivable for the amount of unpaid real estate taxes and other 
unpaid municipal charges, such as for water or sewer services, 
8 
 
 
as well as the interest accrued, and any other fees and charges 
incurred by the collector, such as those associated with posting 
and publishing the notice of taking.  Id. 
The benefit of a tax title account is that if subsequent 
taxes are delinquent, they can be "certified" by the collector 
to the account and confirmed by a certificate signed by the 
treasurer.  G. L. c. 60, § 61.  For example, if a taxpayer 
failed to pay real estate taxes in 2016, leading the 
municipality to create a tax title account, and the taxpayer 
then failed to pay 2017 real estate taxes, the 2017 taxes could 
be added to the account created in 2016 without the need for the 
collector to "retake" the property for continued nonpayment of 
taxes.2 
The treasurer may mail notices to the delinquent taxpayer 
and the present owner of the property, if those are not the same 
person, informing them that the property is in tax title and 
that the point of contact is the treasurer not the collector.  
See Collector's Manual, supra at 47.  However, such notice is 
not required by statute. 
                     
2 In many municipalities, once delinquent taxes are added to 
the tax title account, those taxes no longer appear on 
subsequent real estate tax bills sent by the collector.  That 
means that the homeowner who failed to pay the assessed 2016 
real estate taxes would not see those taxes on the 2017 bill. 
9 
 
 
4.  Tax sale.  As an alternative to a tax taking, a 
collector can conduct a tax sale by executing a tax collector's 
deed.  G. L. c. 60, § 45.  Tax sales are an older method of 
collecting taxes:  the statutory authority for the issuance of 
collector's deeds has existed, in its earliest form, since 1731.  
See P. Nichols, Taxation in Massachusetts 358-359 (3d ed. 1938).  
Although tax sales used to be the customary method of tax 
collection, see id., they have been largely supplanted by tax 
takings, see Collector's Manual, supra at 44, 55.  However, they 
are still used by some municipalities today, notably Worcester.  
See, e.g., Tallage, LLC vs. Gemme, Mass. Land Ct., No. 12 TL 
143424 (Sept. 9, 2019); Tallage LLC vs. Meaney, Mass. Land Ct., 
No. 11 TL 143094 (June 26, 2015). 
a.  Notice of sale.  As with tax takings, after the demand 
for taxes has been sent and fourteen days have passed without 
payment, the first step in the tax sale process is the notice of 
sale.  G. L. c. 60, § 40.  The notice of sale contains the same 
information as the notice of taking described supra and must be 
published by the collector in a local newspaper and posted in 
"two or more convenient and public places" at least fourteen 
days before the sale.  G. L. c. 60, §§ 40, 42. 
b.  Public auction.  If the taxes remain unpaid fourteen 
days after the notice is published and posted, the collector can 
sell the property at the time and place specified in the notice.  
10 
 
 
G. L. c. 60, § 43.  The property may not be sold for less than 
the amount of the unpaid taxes, plus interest and any other 
charges or fees that have accrued, G. L. c. 60, §§ 43, 48, and 
the purchaser must pay the collector within twenty days of the 
sale, G. L. c. 60, § 49.  If nobody bids for the property or if 
the purchaser fails to make timely payment, the municipality 
becomes the purchaser.  G. L. c. 60, §§ 48-49. 
The language of the statute is somewhat confusing because 
it refers to "sale" of "the land."  G. L. c. 60, § 43.  However, 
the person who purchases "the land" at auction is not buying the 
property itself; rather, the purchaser buys a tax receivable, 
which grants the rights to collect the delinquent taxes, plus 
interest and any fees and charges, and to foreclose the 
delinquent taxpayer's right of redemption in Land Court.  G. L. 
c. 60, § 45.  An important distinction between tax sales and tax 
takings is that tax takings grant the municipality an immediate 
right of possession, G. L. c. 60, § 53, but those who purchase 
property at a tax sale do not have "any right to possession of 
the land until the right of redemption is foreclosed," G. L. 
c. 60, § 45. 
c.  Collector's deed.  Following the auction, the collector 
issues the purchaser a collector's deed, which must be recorded 
within sixty days and which states the reason for the sale, the 
purchase price, the name of the delinquent taxpayer, and where 
11 
 
 
the notice of sale was posted and published.  G. L. c. 60, § 45.  
If the municipality itself becomes the purchaser of the 
property, the collector's deed must also state that "no 
sufficient bid was made at the sale or that the purchaser failed 
to pay the amount bid."  G. L. c. 60, § 50.  As with instruments 
of taking, collector's deeds are subject to the delinquent 
taxpayer's right of redemption.  G. L. c. 60, § 45.  And, as 
noted supra, they act only as a security device "for the 
repayment of the purchase price, with all intervening costs, 
terms imposed for redemption and charges, with interest"; they 
do not confer legal ownership of the property.  Id. 
d.  Tax title account.  If the municipality becomes the 
purchaser of the property at auction, the next step is for the 
treasurer to set up a tax title account.  G. L. c. 60, § 50.  As 
noted supra, this allows the subsequent unpaid taxes to be added 
to the account.  G. L. c. 60, § 61. 
From the municipality's perspective, tax sales have the 
advantage of allowing the city or town to immediately collect 
the taxes, including charges and fees, if the property is 
purchased at the sale.  Collector's Manual, supra at 55.  
However, the major disadvantage is that, unless the municipality 
purchases the property itself and creates a tax title account, 
it has no easy way of collecting subsequent unpaid taxes on the 
property.  Id.  As a result, if a taxpayer fails to make the 
12 
 
 
next year's tax payment, the collector may have to conduct 
another tax sale or a tax taking in order to collect the taxes.  
Id. 
5.  Assignment of tax liens to a private party.  Where a 
municipality has taken a property or has become the purchaser 
through a tax sale, the treasurer may initiate proceedings to 
enforce the lien, as described infra.  Alternatively, and 
increasingly frequently, the treasurer may assign the 
municipality's interest to a private party.  See G. L. c. 60, 
§ 2C (bulk sale of tax receivables and liens); G. L. c. 60, § 52 
(tax title auction). 
a.  Assignment at tax title auction.  Tax title auctions 
allow municipalities to assign tax titles either individually or 
in bundles to parties with no prior interest in the property.3  
G. L. c. 60, § 52.  There are notice, publication, and posting 
requirements for an assignment similar to those for tax takings 
and sales.  Id. 
i.  Notice of auction.  In order to hold a tax title 
auction, notice of the auction must be published in a local 
newspaper and posted in two or more convenient places fourteen 
days prior, as in the case of tax takings and tax sales.  Id.  
                     
3 Treasurers may not assign tax titles subject to a payment 
agreement entered into pursuant to G. L. c. 60, § 62A, discussed 
infra. 
13 
 
 
See G. L. c. 60, § 40.  In addition, the treasurer must send the 
notice of the intended assignment to the current owner of record 
at his or her last known address at least ten days before the 
auction.  G. L. c. 60, § 52.  Failure of the owner to receive 
this notice, however, does not affect the validity of the 
assignment.  Id. 
ii.  Tax title auction.  On the day specified in the 
notice, the treasurer holds a public auction at which the tax 
title is assigned to the highest bidder.  Id.  See Dennehy v. 
Walpole, 26 Mass. App. Ct. 930, 931 (1988).  The bid must be, at 
minimum, the balance due on the tax title account.  G. L. c. 60, 
§ 52.  Bidders may offer more than the amount that the taxpayer 
owes to the municipality, but if a taxpayer seeks to redeem the 
property after the assignment, the assignee may not charge the 
premium to the taxpayer.  Id. 
iii.  Instrument of assignment.  After the auction, the 
winning bidder must pay the municipality the amount of the bid 
and any interest that has accrued since the date of the auction.  
Id.  Upon full payment, the treasurer executes an instrument of 
assignment, which must be recorded within sixty days.  Id.  The 
assignee does not acquire any right to possession of or to 
receive any rent or income from the tax title property.  There 
is no requirement under G. L. c. 60, § 52, that the taxpayer be 
14 
 
 
given notice that the tax title was in fact assigned at the 
auction or to whom. 
iv.  Subsequent unpaid taxes.  After a tax title account 
has been assigned, the tax title account is closed, because the 
tax has been collected.  As a result, if a taxpayer fails to pay 
subsequently assessed real estate taxes, the collector cannot 
certify them to the tax title account.  Instead, the collector 
would have to conduct a new tax taking or sale in order to 
collect the taxes.  See G. L. c. 60, § 61 ("A city or town which 
has assigned a tax title held by it shall, after such 
assignment, have all the rights and powers to take or sell the 
real estate affected thereby, for the nonpayment of taxes, which 
it would have possessed had said city or town never been the 
holder of said tax title").  Assignees under G. L. c. 60, § 52, 
do not have the automatic right to purchase the new tax title.  
However, a § 52 assignee may pay the subsequent taxes itself, 
record a certificate of payment, and thereby obtain a lien on 
the property.  G. L. c. 60, § 60. 
b.  Assignment through bulk sale of tax receivables and 
liens.  Since 1996, municipalities have also had the option of 
assigning their tax receivables (unpaid taxes that have not yet 
been put into tax title) and tax titles in bulk.  See G. L. 
c. 60, § 2C, inserted by St. 1996, c. 375, § 1. 
15 
 
 
i.  Publication of accounts.  Before collectors or 
treasurers can assign delinquent taxes, they must publish a list 
of all accounts to be assigned in a local newspaper at least two 
months before the assignment.  G. L. c. 60, § 2C.  There is no 
requirement that notice of the intended assignment be mailed to 
the current property owner. 
ii.  Request for proposals.  Unlike assignment through the 
public auction, where the highest bidder wins, G. L. c. 60, 
§ 2C, grants the municipality more discretion.  The municipality 
chooses the § 2C assignee based on "(i) the price proposed by 
the offeror; (ii) the offeror's qualifications and experience; 
(iii) the offeror's plan for communicating with the taxpayers; 
(iv) whether the offeror has a regular place of business in the 
commonwealth; (v) whether the offeror is in good standing with 
the department of revenue; and (vi) other criteria determined by 
the commissioner and the municipality." 
Also unlike assignments under G. L. c. 60, § 52, the bidder 
may not need to pay the full balance of the tax title account; a 
municipality can sell its tax titles with a discount of up to 
fifty percent of the amount of interest that has accrued on the 
accounts.  G. L. c. 60, § 2C.  However, if the bidder pays a 
premium for the accounts, as under G. L. c. 60, § 52, the 
premium may not be charged as part of the redemption amount.  
G. L. c. 60, § 2C.  Once the purchaser has paid the purchase 
16 
 
 
price, the assignment must be recorded through an instrument of 
transfer.  Id. 
iii.  Notice of assignment.  Following the assignment, the 
municipality provides the names and addresses of the parties to 
whom notice of the assignment is owed.  Id.  The § 2C assignee 
must then provide notice of its purchase of the tax receivable 
or tax title to the taxpayer within twelve days.  Id.  This 
notice need include only the name, address, telephone number, 
and preferred method of communication of the purchaser; it need 
not provide the taxpayer with notice of his or her rights, 
including the right to redeem the property.  Id.  Because 
taxpayers may be unaware of the possibility that their municipal 
tax obligations can be assigned to a private party, and because 
the notice is, like all of the others described so far, 
formalistic, taxpayers may not understand (or believe) that they 
now owe their delinquent taxes to a private party. 
iv.  Right of first refusal.  If a § 2C assignee has 
purchased the tax receivable or tax title to a property and the 
taxpayer is subsequently delinquent in paying his or her real 
estate taxes on that property, the § 2C assignee has the right 
of first refusal to purchase the subsequent receivable.  Id.  
There is no notice or publication requirement for such an 
assignment.  Id. 
17 
 
 
6.  Enforcement of tax liens.  a.  Right of redemption.  
Whether a municipality perfects its tax lien by taking or sale, 
or assigns its interest to a private party, the delinquent 
taxpayer retains a right of redemption.  See G. L. c. 60, §§ 2C, 
45, 52, 53.  The right of redemption is an absolute right to 
regain title to the property upon payment of the full amount of 
the tax title account balance, including taxes, fees, costs, and 
interest.  G. L. c. 60, § 62.  By statute, the taxpayer is 
entitled to redeem the property for six months after the taking 
or sale; however, the right of redemption lasts unless and until 
it is foreclosed.  G. L. c. 60, § 65. 
Any party with an interest in the property can exercise 
this right of redemption until a petition to foreclose it has 
been filed in the Land Court.  Therefore, the right of 
redemption may be exercised not only by the delinquent taxpayer 
or current owner of the property, but also by a mortgagee, lien 
holder, creditor, or easement holder, among others.  Id.  See 
Union Trust Co. v. Reed, 213 Mass. 199, 201 (1912) (broadly 
construing "any person having an interest in any such land" to 
include "all varieties of titles and rights"; "it comprehends 
estates in fee, for life and for years, mortgages, liens, 
easements, attachments, and every kind of claim to land which 
can form the basis of a property right").  If an interested 
party successfully pays off the full tax title account balance, 
18 
 
 
the treasurer files an instrument of redemption, which removes 
the lien and returns title to the property to the taxpayer (or 
other redeeming party).  G. L. c. 60, § 62. 
If the municipality owns the tax title, a taxpayer may also 
redeem the property by making installment payments to the 
treasurer, which gives the municipality flexibility to work out 
a payment plan with the delinquent taxpayer, provided the 
taxpayer pay the full amount of the tax title account, with 
interest.  See G. L. c. 60, § 62.  There is no minimum partial 
payment, and, upon accepting partial payments, the treasurer may 
extend the waiting period to foreclose for up to two years.  Id. 
In addition, municipalities that have adopted an ordinance 
or bylaw pursuant to G. L. c. 60, § 62A, may enter into payment 
agreements with the taxpayer as authorized by the ordinance or 
bylaw.  Such payment agreements can last up to five years and 
waive up to fifty percent of the interest that would otherwise 
be owed if the taxpayer complies with the payment schedule in 
the agreement, but the taxpayer must make "a minimum payment at 
the inception of the agreement of [twenty-five percent] of the 
amount needed to redeem the parcel."  Id.  As long as the 
taxpayer adheres to the payment plan, the treasurer cannot file 
a foreclosure petition in the Land Court; however, if the 
taxpayer fails to make the agreed-upon payments, the taxpayer 
would be in default and subject to foreclosure of the right of 
19 
 
 
redemption.  Id.  Importantly, however, if a municipality 
assigns its interest in property to a private party, it loses 
its ability to work with taxpayers to craft a payment plan. 
b.  Foreclosure of right of redemption.  i.  Petition to 
foreclose.  If nobody redeems the property within six months 
after the taking or sale, the municipal treasurer, the purchaser 
of a collector's deed, or an assignee under G. L. c. 60, § 2C or 
§ 52, may begin proceedings to foreclose the delinquent 
taxpayer's right of redemption by filing a petition in the Land 
Court.4  G. L. c. 60, § 65.  The foreclosure petition may be 
filed any time after the six-month redemption period has passed; 
there is no statute of limitations.  Id.  The Land Court then 
conducts a title examination and gives notice to all of the 
parties with an interest in the land, informing them of the 
petition and providing a period of time no shorter than twenty 
days to answer the petition.  G. L. c. 60, §§ 66-67.  If the 
taxpayer fails to file a timely response to the petition, the 
municipality or private party may immediately move the court to 
enter a judgment of foreclosure of the right of redemption.  
G. L. c. 60, § 67.  Between fiscal years 2016 and 2020, almost 
                     
4 If the property is of "low value," i.e., assessed under 
$15,000, another optional administrative foreclosure procedure 
exists.  G. L. c. 60, § 79.  In addition, an expedited process 
can be followed where the property has been abandoned.  G. L. 
c. 60, § 65. 
20 
 
 
one-quarter of taxpayers did not respond to the petition and 
therefore were found by the court to have defaulted.5 
ii.  Request for finding.  If the taxpayer answers and 
appears, the Land Court provides the taxpayer with an 
explanation of his or her rights.  For many, this is the first 
time that they are provided with any effective notice of their 
right to redeem -- after the statutory redemption period has 
already expired. 
The municipality or private party then files a request for 
a finding by the Land Court regarding the amount of money that 
the taxpayer must pay in order to redeem the property.  G. L. 
c. 60, § 68.  This redemption amount includes the amount of 
taxes certified to the tax title account, as well as any 
interest, costs, and fees.  Id.  In addition, costs and fees 
associated with the foreclosure action, including legal fees, 
may be included in the redemption amount.  G. L. c. 60, § 65.  
The Land Court also sets a time for redemption.  G. L. c. 60, 
§ 68.  The homeowners, the majority of whom are unrepresented, 
sometimes are reluctant to negotiate with the attorney for the 
municipality or private party because the billing rate for the 
                     
5 Between fiscal years 2016 and 2020, there were 10,301 tax 
lien cases that reached a final disposition.  In 2,498 of these 
cases, or 24.3 percent, a motion for general default was 
allowed. 
21 
 
 
attorney's time spent on negotiations can be added to the 
redemption amount. 
The redemption period under G. L. c. 60, § 68, is distinct 
from the six-month statutory redemption period following the tax 
taking or sale under G. L. c. 60, § 65.  The Land Court has 
broad discretion to allow redemption over any "time fixed by the 
court."  G. L. c. 60, § 68.  In this way, the Land Court may 
permit a taxpayer to pay the redemption amount in installments 
over a fixed period, such as where the tax title has been 
assigned to a private party, which does not have statutory 
authority to enter into payment plans with taxpayers.  Id.  
Through use of this discretionary redemption period, the Land 
Court can also give a taxpayer the opportunity to redeem the 
property through refinancing or through the voluntary sale of 
the property.  However, the Land Court cannot provide taxpayers 
with legal advice, and many are unrepresented with little 
understanding of the process or risks that they are facing. 
iii.  Foreclosure.  If the taxpayer does not respond to the 
petition or fails to redeem the property according to the terms 
fixed by the Land Court, and the court enters judgment to 
foreclose the right of redemption, the municipality or private 
party takes absolute title to the property.  G. L. c. 60, § 69.  
This "strict foreclosure" process is different in several 
important ways from a foreclosure by power of sale, which is 
22 
 
 
typical of home mortgage foreclosures.  See G. L. c. 244, § 11.  
When a homeowner fails to make mortgage payments, the lender may 
sell the property at auction to the highest bidder if the lender 
has provided proper notice to the borrower and the borrower 
failed to discharge the mortgage.  See G. L. c. 244, §§ 14, 17B; 
G. L. c. 183, § 21.  If the property is sold for more than is 
owed on the mortgage, the lender retains the amount owed 
(including interest, penalties, and any costs associated with 
foreclosure) and pays any surplus back to the borrower; the 
borrower thereby keeps any equity in the home.  G. L. c. 244, 
§ 36. 
By contrast, there is no sale in a strict foreclosure; the 
foreclosure judgment extinguishes the taxpayer's remaining 
interest in the property -- the right of redemption -- and 
converts the municipality's or third party's tax title into 
absolute title.  G. L. c. 60, § 64.  See Sandwich v. Quirk, 409 
Mass. 380, 384, cert. denied, 502 U.S. 814 (1991) ("The absolute 
title proclaimed by § 64 clears the record title so that the 
municipality may sell the property or keep it for municipal 
purposes, free of the claims of the prior owner and other 
persons whose rights are extinguished").  In addition, the 
foreclosing party takes title free and clear of all 
encumbrances, including mortgages and other liens.  G. L. c. 60, 
§ 64.  See Gaunt, 313 Mass. at 40 (mortgagees have no interest 
23 
 
 
in land following foreclosure decree).  Consequently, following 
the foreclosure, the municipality or third party owns the 
property outright, and the taxpayer loses any equity that he or 
she had in the property, no matter how small the amount of the 
taxes owed.  See Tallage LLC vs. Meaney, Mass. Land Ct., No. 11 
TL 143094 (June 26, 2015) (failure of taxpayers to pay municipal 
water and sewer bills amounting to $492.51 resulted in 
foreclosure on property valued at $270,000).  There is generally 
equity to lose in these foreclosed properties because most of 
the property owners who find themselves facing foreclosure have 
a home with no mortgage on it:  if the property were mortgaged, 
the mortgagee generally would pay the real estate taxes even if 
the homeowner were in default on the mortgage in order to 
protect its interest in the property. 
iv.  Petition to vacate foreclosure.  Although G. L. c. 60, 
§ 69, states that entry of the foreclosure judgment "shall 
forever bar all rights of redemption," the taxpayer may move to 
vacate the judgment upon payment of the full redemption amount 
plus interest for up to one year.  G. L. c. 60, § 69A.  The Land 
Court may then, in its discretion, vacate the foreclosure 
judgment if "required to accomplish justice" (citation omitted).  
Lynch v. Boston, 313 Mass. 478, 480 (1943).  After one year, the 
judgment is final and can be vacated only upon a showing of lack 
of due process.  See North Reading v. Welch, 46 Mass. App. Ct. 
24 
 
 
818, 819-820 (1999).  If a taxpayer fails to file a timely 
response to the petition to foreclose and if the owner of the 
tax title moves the Land Court to enter a judgment of 
foreclosure of the right of redemption, there is no statutory 
requirement that the taxpayer be notified of the foreclosure 
judgment. 
v.  Eviction.  Once the Land Court has entered the 
foreclosure judgment, the municipality or private party owns the 
property outright.  G. L. c. 60, § 69.  If the property is 
occupied, the new owner may then initiate a summary process 
eviction under G. L. c. 239, § 1.  See Adjartey v. Central Div. 
of the Hous. Court Dep't, 481 Mass. 830, 834 n.7 (2019).  
However, because of the one-year period during which the former 
owner can move to vacate the foreclosure, the new owners may 
delay the eviction proceedings:  in at least one case, a § 2C 
assignee, aware of the absolute one-year bar on petitions to 
vacate, implemented a strategy "to lay low in the hopes that the 
taxpayer would remain unaware of her rights, and [did] not 
communicate with the taxpayer until the one-year right to 
petition to redeem after the foreclosure judgment had expired."  
25 
 
 
Ithaca Fin., LLC vs. Leger, Mass. Land Ct., No. 14 TL 148761 
(HPS) (May 10, 2019).6 
                     
6 As noted by the Land Court in Tallage LLC vs. Meaney, 
Mass. Land Ct., No. 11 TL 143094 (June 26, 2015), such tactics 
are unsurprising: 
 
"Tax foreclosure proceedings brought and pursued by private 
entities are outside the political process.  Such entities 
are responsible to their investors, not the citizens of a 
city or town, and their goals and incentives are not the 
same.  Maximizing return on investment may not include 
accommodation to individual circumstance to the same extent 
a municipality, acting for itself, might otherwise deem 
warranted."