Opinion ID: 2010854
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Foreclosure Actions

Text: Appellants Tangoren, Hassan, and Biggs were successful purchasers at a tax sale conducted by OTR on July 19, 2002. Some time after the tax sale, Tangoren and Hassan received their certificates of sale from OTR. Biggs did not receive a certificate of sale at this timeor so he claims, and there is no evidence in the record to contradict him. As required by law, the certificates furnished to Tangoren and Hassan set forth the dates of the original public tax sale and the sale to the purchaser (July 19, 2002, in both cases), as well as the date on which the six-month waiting period would end (January 19, 2003). However, the certificates did not set forth the third statutorilyrequired datethe date of the certificate itself; nor did the undated certificates set forth a specific date on which the one-year period for initiating foreclosure proceedings would end. Over the next two-and-one-half years, appellants commenced no foreclosure proceedings. On January 28, 2005, OTR sent each appellant a letter, informing them that [a]n action to foreclose upon the right of redemption must be filed ... within one year from the date of the Certificate of Sale. The Certificate of Sale is void if an action to foreclose the right of redemption is not filed within the one-year period.... The intent of this law is to bring closure to a tax sale in a timely manner by ensuring that all foreclosure actions are filed within one year from the date of the Certificate of Sale. The date on the Certificates of Sale issued for the 2001 and 2002 Tax Sales did not clearly define the date that the Certificates of Sale were issued. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT THE OFFICE OF TAX AND REVENUE (OTR) SHALL DEEM MARCH 28, 2005 AS THE EXPIRATION OF THE ONE-YEAR PERIOD. ANY SUCH CERTIFICATE OF SALE FOR WHICH A FORECLOSURE ACTION HAS NOT BEEN FILED BY MARCH 28, 2005 SHALL BE DEEMED VOID BY OTR.    This notice is for OTR procedural uses only. You may not rely upon this notice as a legal extension of the filing deadline, and should consult your legal advisor to determine whether your Certificate of Sale is void before you incur additional expenses. In response to this notification, Tangoren and Hassan commenced foreclosure actions in Superior Court before March 28, 2005. Meanwhile, on March 7, 2005, Biggs requested that OTR issue him a certificate of sale for the property he had purchased on July 19, 2002. On March 23, Biggs received a certificate, which, like Tangoren's and Hassan's certificates, bore the date of the tax sale and the date of the sale to the purchaser but not the date of the certificate itself. In addition, however, Biggs's certificate was marked Duplicate in the upper right-hand corner and was dated 3/23/2005 in the lower left-hand corner. Biggs proceeded to initiate his foreclosure action before the March 28, 2005, deadline set by OTR. Tangoren's and Hassan's foreclosure actions were dismissed by a magistrate judge, who concluded that they were not filed within the statutory one-year window and hence were time-barred. On review, Superior Court Associate Judge Zeldon affirmed the dismissals, explaining that because OTR only affixed two dates to the certificate[s]the date of the sale (January 19, 2002) and the date when the six month waiting period would cease (January 19, 2003)OTR could only have intended that the date of the certificate be the same as the date of the sale. Subsequently, the judge sua sponte dismissed Biggs's action as also having been filed well beyond the applicable statutory deadline. In denying Biggs's motion for reconsideration, the judge elaborated on her reasoning as follows: The certificate in this case provides that the date of the sale is July 19, 2002. The [OTR] then provided the date when an action to foreclose the right of redemption could be filedJanuary 19, 2003. Where no other date is included on the certificate to identify what OTR considered the date of the certificate, this Court can only conclude that OTR made no distinction between the sale date and the certificate date. In any event, however, OTR is an administrative agency of the District of Columbia. OTR cannot extend the statute of limitations on a tax sale certificateregardless of whether the purchaser promptly received a certificate or notthree years from when the sale actually occurred, especially when a date is provided on the certificate. Appellants' timely appeals were consolidated by this Court.