Court Opinion

ID: 9407456
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-07 14:06:40.807473+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:38.504140
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: JUNE 30, 2023; 10:00 A.M.
                         NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                Commonwealth of Kentucky
                          Court of Appeals
                             NO. 2022-CA-1495-MR

APEX FUND SERVICES AS
CUSTODIAN FOR CERES TAX
RECEIVABLES, LLC                                                     APPELLANT

                   APPEAL FROM CLAY CIRCUIT COURT
v.                 HONORABLE OSCAR G. HOUSE, JUDGE
                        ACTION NO. 18-CI-00173

KEITH SMITH; JESSICA SMITH;
AND COMMONWEALTH OF
KENTUCKY – CLAY COUNTY                                                APPELLEES

                                OPINION
                        REVERSING AND REMANDING

                                  ** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: THOMPSON, CHIEF JUDGE; GOODWINE AND TAYLOR,
JUDGES.

THOMPSON, CHIEF JUDGE: Apex Fund Services as custodian for Ceres Tax

Receivables, LLC, appeals from an order of the Clay Circuit Court which gave

Keith and Jessica Smith, holders of liens for delinquent real estate ad valorem
taxes, priority on the distribution of proceeds from a judicial sale. We find that the

trial court erred and reverse and remand.1

                         FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                 Apex, the Smiths, and Clay County all have liens on a parcel of

property stemming from delinquent ad valorem property taxes. Apex and the

Smiths were third-party purchasers of the delinquent taxes pursuant to Kentucky

Revised Statutes (KRS) 134.128. Apex initiated a foreclosure action on the subject

property seeking a judicial sale in order to satisfy their claim for the delinquent

taxes. The Smiths then filed a cross-claim asserting their rights to the proceeds of

the judicial sale.

                 An order of sale was entered which allowed the property to be sold to

satisfy the tax liens. The Smiths moved to alter or amend the order and argued that

their lien was superior in priority to that of Apex because the delinquent taxes they

bought were filed prior to those purchased by Apex. The Smiths sought to fully

satisfy their lien first before any proceeds were awarded to Apex. The trial court

agreed with the Smiths’ argument and granted the motion to give priority to the

Smiths’ tax lien. This appeal followed.2

1
    Clay County filed a brief in this case, but took no position on the issues on appeal.
2
 The property was sold, but the proceeds did not satisfy all the liens of Apex, the Smiths, and
Clay County.

                                                   -2-
                                     ANALYSIS

             After reviewing the record and the arguments of the parties, we

conclude that the trial court erred in giving the Smiths’ tax lien priority over that of

Apex. KRS 134.420, the delinquent real estate ad valorem tax statute, states in

pertinent part:

             (3) The lien shall include all interest, penalties, fees,
             commissions, charges, costs, attorney fees, and other
             expenses as provided by this chapter that have been
             incurred by reason of delinquency in payment of the tax
             claim certificate of delinquency, personal property
             certificate of delinquency, or in the process of collecting
             any of them, and shall have priority over any other
             obligation or liability for which the property is liable.

             (4) The lien of any city, county, or other taxing district
             shall be of equal rank with that of the state.

(Emphasis added.) KRS 134.420(3) and (4) have been interpreted to mean that all

liens stemming from delinquent real estate ad valorem taxes, including those

purchased by a third party, are equal in priority to each other. KLAS Properties,

LLC v. Tax Ease Lien Investments 1, LLC, 407 S.W.3d 564, 567 (Ky. App. 2013);

U.S. Bank Nat. Ass’n v. Tax Ease Lien Investments 1, LLC, 356 S.W.3d 770, 772

(Ky. App. 2011). KLAS Properties makes this clear when that Court stated,

“[c]learly, KRS 134.420 affords all ad valorem tax liens equal priority.” KLAS

Properties, 407 S.W.3d at 567.

                                          -3-
             The next question we must answer is what to do when the proceeds of

the judicial sale do not fully satisfy the liens on the property? KLAS Properties

and U.S. Bank Nat. Ass’n also give us that answer. Those cases indicate that Apex,

the Smiths, and Clay County are entitled to a pro rata share of the proceeds of the

judicial sale. KLAS Properties, 407 S.W.3d at 567; U.S. Bank Nat. Ass’n, 356

S.W.3d at 772.

                                   CONCLUSION

             Based on the foregoing, we reverse and remand for further

proceedings. Apex, the Smiths, and Clay County are on equal footing when it

comes to the liens in this case. No party has priority over the others when it comes

to the proceeds of the sale. On remand, the trial court shall award the parties to

this case their pro rata share of the proceeds of the sale.

             ALL CONCUR.

 BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT:                      BRIEF FOR APPELLEES KEITH
                                            SMITH AND JESSICA SMITH:
 John M. Lally
 Louisville, Kentucky                       Stella B. House
                                            Manchester, Kentucky

                                            BRIEF FOR APPELLEE
                                            COMMONWEALTH OF
                                            KENTUCKY – CLAY COUNTY:

                                            Mariah J. Aubrey
                                            Assistant Clay County Attorney
                                            Manchester, Kentucky

                                          -4-