Opinion ID: 1842976
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Invalidity of Tax Deed

Text: The question as phrased by the district court also requires us to consider the effect of sections 65.081(3) [2] and 197.404, [3] Florida Statutes (1987), which specify the defenses to either a tax deed or tax sale. Dawson contends that sections 65.081(3) and 197.404 supersede section 197.522, thereby excluding insufficient notice as grounds for challenging the validity of tax deeds. Under Dawson's interpretation of these sections, a tax deed would be valid even without compliance with any of the statutory notice requirements. If this Court approved Dawson's interpretation of sections 65.081(3) and 197.404, then we would also be required to find the statutes constitutionally invalid insofar as they would permit the sale of property without notice to the affected owners. Such a result contravenes the elementary and fundamental requirement of due process[,] namely notice to the interested parties. Mullane, 339 U.S. at 314, 70 S.Ct. at 657. Mindful of our obligation to interpret statutes so as to uphold rather than invalidate them, we reject Dawson's interpretation. The statutes at issue operate on the same subject, but are without positive inconsistency or repugnancy in their practical effect and consequences [and thus] should each be given the effect designed for them unless a contrary intent clearly appears. State v. Gadsden County, 63 Fla. 620, 629, 58 So. 232, 235 (1912). Thus, the legislature must have intended for sections 65.081(3) and 197.404 to be read in pari materia with section 197.522, so as to give each part a field of operation. Whittington v. Davis, 159 Fla. 409, 414, 32 So.2d 158, 161 (1947). Other jurisdictions that have considered statutes similar to sections 65.081(3) and 197.404 have concluded that defects of form may be cured by the statutes, but not a jurisdictional defect which occurs when notice does not satisfy due process requirements. See, e.g., Shaffer v. Mareve Oil Corp., 157 W. Va. 816, 204 S.E.2d 404 (1974); Bogart v. Lathrop, 90 Nev. 230, 523 P.2d 838 (1974). Accordingly, we find that sections 65.081(3) and 197.404 specify the bases by which either a tax deed or tax sale may be invalidated, provided that there has been compliance with the notice requirements of section 197.522(1). Without the notice mandated by section 197.522(1), the fundamental requirement of due process has not been satisfied and the tax deed or sale is not valid. Dawson next argues that federal and state due process requirements are met by section 197.332, Florida Statutes (1987), [4] which imposes an affirmative duty on all property owners to know of and to pay their current and delinquent taxes. While we agree that all taxpayers are under an obligation to know the tax status of their property, knowledge of delinquency in the payment of taxes is not equivalent to notice that a tax sale is pending. Mennonite Bd. of Missions v. Adams, 462 U.S. 791, 800, 103 S.Ct. 2706, 2712, 77 L.Ed.2d 180 (1983). The duty imposed upon owners of Florida land by section 197.332 does not relieve the state of its constitutional obligation to inform interested parties of the pendency of a tax sale. See id. at 799, 103 S.Ct. at 2711-12. Thus, as qualified by the above opinion, we answer the question as posed in the affirmative. Failure to comply with the notice requirements of section 197.522 invalidates the issuance of a tax deed, notwithstanding the language in section 197.404 and 65.081(3). However, based on our conclusion that section 197.522(2) is directory only, we hold that the statutory notice requirements have been fully complied with when the clerk adheres to the mandatory provisions contained in section 197.522(1). Accordingly, we quash the decision below and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. BARKETT, C.J., and OVERTON, McDONALD, SHAW, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.