Skip to main content
· 6/28/1907

Citizens' Bank v. Marr

Citations

  • 120 La. 236
  • 45 So. 115
  • 1907 La. LEXIS 637

Syllabus

<p>Taxation — Tax Sale — Mortgage—Foreclosure — Quieting Title.</p> <p>Certain property on which the Citizens’ Bank had a special mortgage had in 1885 been adjudicated to the state in enforcement of delinquent taxes assessed against the owner, and the tax deed had been recorded. The Citizens’ Bank, ignoring the tax sale, seized and sold under its mortgage the same property, buying it in itself. Tax privileges appearing on the records, it became necessary to have them erased before the sheriff would execute a deed of sale. The bank thereupon caused a rule to issue against the state tax collector to show cause why the inscription should not be erased, on the ground that they were then prescribed. The tax collector making no appearance, the rule was made absolute, and the sheriff executed to it a deed, but the bank was not placed in possession. On the contrary, the State Auditor had in the meantime sold the property to W. as belonging to the state under the adjudication made to it, and the deed was recorded in July, 1898.</p> <p>The bank thereupon, in October, 1901, attacked the adjudication made to the state and the sale to Wall on various grounds, among others that the judgment in the rule was res judicata as to the existence of taxes, and es-topped the state from thereafter selling the property. It prayed to have the adjudication and sale set aside as a cloud upon its title; to have its ownership recognized, and to be placed' in possession. Judgment was rendered in its favor and defendant appealed.</p> <p>Held, the judgment appealed from is erroneous, and it is annulled, avoided, and reversed. The owner of the property has acquiesced in the tax sale, and abandoned the property. Neither he nor the bank has paid taxes since the tax sale, nor offered to do so. The judgment on the rule for reasons assigned cannot be invoked as res judicata or by way of estoppel. The owner’s title has been destroyed, also the bank’s mortgage which was based on ownership. It is too late f

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • observing that de novo review applies when a claims administrator failed to provide a full and fair review of a claim for benefits
  • acknowledging the DOL’s amicus brief in Midgett and its argument for Auer deference
  • claimant and plan administrators must engage in a “meaningful dialogue,” even at the appellate stage, in order to meet with the notion of a “full and fair review”
  • noting a claimant’s right to “submit new information” on appeal

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Nicholls

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.