Pearson v. Dodd
159 W. Va. 254, 54 Oil & Gas Rep. 96, 221 S.E.2d 171 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A former property owner, whose property has become irredeemable and title has vested absolutely in the state due to tax delinquency, does not retain a significant property interest that triggers heightened due process notice requirements beyond publication for a subsequent judicial sale of that property. The statutory opportunity to petition for redemption at this stage is an 'act of grace' and not a constitutionally protected property interest.
Facts:
- In 1937, Cede G. Pearson acquired a one-fourth oil and gas interest in a 68-acre tract by a deed from her son, H. C. Pearson, Jr.
- Cede Pearson did not have her name entered on the county land books; the interest remained listed under her son's name, H. C. Pearson, Jr.
- From 1938 until 1960, Cede Pearson's husband paid the property taxes, which were assessed in her son's name.
- In 1961, Cede Pearson failed to pay the real estate taxes on the interest due to an oversight.
- As a result of the delinquency, the property was sold to the State of West Virginia in 1962.
- In 1966, the State sold the property at a tax sale to W. P. Dodd for $30.00. The public notice for this sale listed the former owner as H. C. Pearson, Jr. and incorrectly described the interest.
- In 1967, Dodd granted Columbia Gas the right to drill, and in March 1968, Columbia Gas completed a highly productive gas well on the property.
- On July 26, 1968, after the well was completed, Cede Pearson paid the State Auditor $101.86 in an attempt to redeem her interest.
Procedural Posture:
- The Deputy Commissioner of Forfeited and Delinquent Lands instituted a suit in the name of the State of West Virginia for the sale of the delinquent land.
- Cede G. Pearson commenced an action to quiet title against W. P. Dodd, Ernestine Dodd, and Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, a state trial court.
- The Circuit Court held that Pearson did not own any part of the oil and gas interest.
- Cede G. Pearson (appellant) appealed the final order of the Circuit Court to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state statute that provides for notice by publication only in a judicial proceeding to sell state-owned land previously acquired through tax delinquency violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment with respect to the former owner?
Opinions:
Majority - Haden, Chief Justice
No, the statute providing for notice by publication does not violate the due process clause in this context. The court distinguished between a former owner's absolute statutory 'right' to redeem within eighteen months of the state's purchase and the mere 'privilege' to petition for redemption after that period expires and title vests absolutely in the state. Once the property becomes irredeemable, the former owner no longer possesses a 'significant property interest' sufficient to invoke the heightened notice protections established in cases like Mullane v. Central Hanover Trust Co. The opportunity to petition for redemption is considered an 'act of grace' by the legislature, not a constitutional entitlement, so notice by publication is constitutionally adequate for the subsequent judicial sale.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of a former property owner's due process rights in tax sale proceedings by drawing a sharp distinction between different stages of the process. It establishes that once the statutory right of redemption expires and title absolutely vests in the state, the former owner's remaining interest is too tenuous to require personal service of process for a subsequent sale. This strengthens the finality of tax sales and promotes the security of land titles acquired through them, limiting the ability of former owners to challenge these sales on procedural due process grounds years after the initial delinquency.
