Peplinski v. County of Richland
v.
County of Richland, a
Municipal Corporation; and
Christian M. Anderson, Defendants, Third-Party
Plaintiffs, and Appellees
v.
The United States of America, Farm
Service Agency, f/k/a Farmers Home
Administration, United States Department
of Agriculture; The United States of
America, Commodity Credit Corporation,
U.S. Department of Agriculture; Nodak
Mutual Insurance Company; PHI Financial
Services, Inc.; Farmers Union Oil Company
of Lidgerwood/Wyndmere, a North Dakota
Cooperative; Wyndmere Farmers Elevator,
a North Dakota Cooperative; and Farm Credit
Services, f/k/a Federal Land Bank Association
of St. Paul, Third-Party Defendants
Judge Richard W. Grosz
| Appellant: | Garaas Law Firm | |
| Appellee: | Lies & Bullis | |
| Appellee: | Anderson Law Office | |
| Defendant: | Lynn E. Crooks |
1. Was the 1992 tax sale of Peplinski's land invalid because of the failure of the county auditor to strictly follow the requirements of N.D.C.C. 57-24-07 thereby denying Peplinski due process of law?
2. Did the County of Richland's failure to charge Anderson the right price for the tax certificate assigned to him vitiate the tax certificate and the resulting tax deed?
3. If the assignment of the tax certificate to Anderson was valid, was Anderson required to give further notice to Peplinski prior to a tax deed being issued to him?
4. If the 1992 tax sale and the assignment of the tax certificate to Anderson were valid, should Peplinski's redemption period be governed by N.D.C.C. 57-26-01?
5. Was the notice of the expiration of the period or redemption afforded to Peplinski sufficient to (a) comply with the appropriate statutes, (b) cut off his homestead rights, or (c) provide him with due process of law?
6. Did the lower court have jurisdiction to determine that the United States of America has no interest or estate as a lienholder in the subject real property?
Subissue: Does Peplinski have standing to assert the priority of the United States of America's mortgagee's interest in the subject property?
7. Was a judicial action necessary to foreclose the delinquent real estate taxes because the subject real property was part of Peplinski's homestead?
Subissue: Has Peplinski waived his homestead rights to the subject land because of the failure to declare a homestead prior to Anderson receiving a tax deed?
8. Was Audrey Peplinski entitled to be mailed notice of the expiration of the period of redemption?
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
1. Has Peplinski's failure to provide an adequate transcript of the proceedings prevented a meaningful and intelligent review of the issues.
2. Did the failure of the county auditor to strictly follow the provisions of N.D.C.C. 57-24-07 concerning publication defects deny Peplinski due process of law?
3. Would the County of Richland's failure to charge Anderson the right price for the tax certificate assigned to him vitiate the tax certificate and the resulting tax deed?
4. Was Anderson required to give further notice to Peplinski prior to a tax deed being issued to him?
5. Should Peplinski's redemption period be governed by N.D.C.C. 57-28-02?
6. Was the Notice of the Expiration of the Period or Redemption afforded Peplinski sufficient to (a) comply with the appropriate statues, (b) cut off his homestead rights, and (c) provide him with due process of law?
7. Did the lower court have jurisdiction to determine that the United States of America has no interest or estate as a lienholder in the subject real property?
Subissue: Does Peplinski have standing to assert the rights of the United States of America his mortgagee, in the subject property?
8. Was a judicial action necessary to foreclose the delinquent real estate taxes if the subject real property was part of Peplinski's homestead?
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
1. Was the 1992 tax sale of Peplinski's land invalid because of the failure of the County Auditor to strictly follow the requirements of N.D.C.C. 57-24-07 thereby denying Peplinski due process of law?
2. Did the County of Richland's failure to charge Anderson the right price for the tax certificate assigned to him vitiate the tax certificate and the resulting tax deed?
3. If the assignment of the tax certificate to Anderson was valid, was Anderson required to give further notice to Peplinski prior to a tax deed being issued to him?
4. If the 1992 tax sale and the assignment of the tax certificate to Anderson were valid, should Peplinski's redemption period be governed by N.D.C.C. 57-26-01?
5. Was the notice of the expiration of the period of redemption afforded to Peplinski sufficient to (a) comply with the appropriate statutes, (b) cut off his homestead rights, or (c) provide him with due process of law?
6. Did the lower court have jurisdiction to determine that the United States of America has no interest or estate as a lienholder in the subject real property? Subissue: Does Peplinski have standing to assert the priority of the United States of America's mortgagee's interest in the subject property?
7. Was a judicial action necessary to foreclose the delinquent real estate taxes because the subject real property was part of Peplinski's homestead? Subissue: Has Peplinski waived his homestead rights to the subject land because of the failure to declare a homestead prior to Anderson receiving a tax deed?
8. Was Audrey Peplinski entitled to be mailed notice of the expiration of the period of redemption?
9. Was Peplinski's providing only an excerpt transcript of the proceedings sufficient to allow the Court a meaningful review of this matter?
Add Docket 990376 RSS