Peplinski v. County of Richland

990376 LaVern Peplinski, Plaintiff and Appellant
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

Appeal from: District Court, Southeast Judicial District, Richland County
Judge Richard W. Grosz
Nature of Action: Real Property
Counsel:
Appellant: Garaas Law Firm
Appellee: Lies & Bullis
Appellee: Anderson Law Office
Defendant: Lynn E. Crooks
Term: 05/2000   Argument: 05/17/2000  2:45pm
ND cite: 2000 ND 156
NW cite: 615 N.W.2d 546


Issues: Appellant'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 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 Add Docket 990376 RSS

Docket entries:
112/13/1999 NOTICE OF APPEAL: 12/08/1999
212/13/1999 ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT (Cynthia Keller, Court Recorder): 12/08/1999
301/25/2000 RECORD ON APPEAL (2 vols. & separates (exhibits))
401/26/2000 TRANSCRIPT DATED June 2, 1999
502/04/2000 Proof of Service of copies of the Transcript
602/04/2000 DISK - TRA of 6-2-99
703/03/2000 APPELLANT BRIEF
803/03/2000 APPELLANT APPENDIX
903/06/2000 DISK - ATB
1003/10/2000 Copies (7) of page 24 of ATB
1104/04/2000 APPELLEE BRIEF (Christian M. Anderson)
1204/05/2000 DISK - AEB (Christian M. Anderson)
1304/05/2000 APPELLEE BRIEF (County of Richland)
1404/06/2000 DISK - AEB (County of Richland)
1504/18/2000 REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT
1604/18/2007 Addendum to Reply Brief
1704/19/2000 DISK - RYB
1804/26/2000 Request for Radio/TV Coverage (Ltr of 4-25-00 fm Jack McDonald requesting permission for AP to
1904/26/2000 cover the hearing in this case) (approved)
2005/02/2000 Letter dated 5-01-00 from Steven J. Lies re OA (he will not be present but indicated the AE's
2105/02/2000 position will be adequately addressed by co-appellee)
2205/17/2000 APPEARANCES: David A. Garaas; Christian M. Anderson
2305/17/2000 ARGUED: Garaas; Anderson (Vol. X; page 29)
2405/17/2000 ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST
2508/18/2000 DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED
2608/18/2000 UNANIMOUS OPINION: Neumann, William A.
2708/18/2000 Costs on appeal taxed in favor of Appellees
2808/21/2000 Order/Judgment Mailed to Parties
2909/01/2000 PETITION FOR REHEARING
3009/14/2000 ACTION BY SUPREME COURT (PER). Denied
3109/26/2000 MANDATE
3209/28/2000 RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE
3303/19/2007 EXPUNGED - Nonpermanent record items destroyed

Generated from Supreme Court Docket on 08/29/2014