Boddie v. Robinson

16 Citing cases

  1. Malone v. Robinson

    614 A.2d 33 (D.C. 1992)   Cited 24 times

    The power to convey property for nonpayment of taxes can be validly exercised only by strict compliance with the relevant statutes and regulations. Frassetto v. Barry, 497 A.2d 109, 113 (D.C. 1985); Boddie v. Robinson, 430 A.2d 519, 522 (D.C. 1981); Watson v. Scheve, 424 A.2d 1089, 1092 (D.C. 1980). Thus, if the District fails to comply with the statute and regulations, the sale is invalid and must be set aside.

  2. Associated Estates, LLC v. Caldwell

    779 A.2d 939 (D.C. 2001)   Cited 9 times
    Requiring strict compliance with registered mail notice for tax lien property sales

    It is firmly established in this jurisdiction that the District of Columbia "may effect a valid conveyance of property for nonpayment of real estate taxes only by `strict compliance' with the tax sale statute and regulations." Boddie v. Robinson, 430 A.2d 519, 522 (D.C. 1981) (citations omitted). Strict compliance is required to "guard against the deprivation of property without due process of law," and because "it is the policy of the state to give the delinquent taxpayer every reasonable opportunity, compatible with the rights of the state, to redeem his property."

  3. Robinson v. Kerwin

    454 A.2d 1302 (D.C. 1982)   Cited 7 times
    In Kerwin, the property owners did not file a change of address form with the Department, but they testified that they twice orally informed the Department of their new address, and the Department mailed income tax forms to the owners' new address.

    We have stated on a number of occasions that "the District may effect a valid conveyance of property for nonpayment of real estate taxes only by 'strict compliance' with the tax sale statute and regulations." Boddie v. Robinson, D.C.App., 430 A.2d 519, 522 (1981) (citing Watson v. Scheve, D.C.App., 424 A.2d 1089, 1092 (1980); Shenandoah Corp. v. Pringle, D.C.App., 385 A.2d 748, 749 (1978); and Potomac Building Corp. v. Karkenny, D.C.App., 364 A.2d 809, 812 (1976) (per curiam), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 921, 97 S.Ct. 2192, 53 L.Ed.2d 234 (1977)). Indeed, the purchaser at a tax sale "acts at his peril, for deficiencies in notice publication are readily discoverable by him before he acts to purchase." Potomac Building Corp., 364 A.2d at 812.

  4. Bembery v. District of Columbia

    852 A.2d 935 (D.C. 2004)   Cited 3 times

    The District, for its part, may effect a valid conveyance of property for nonpayment of real estate taxes only by strict compliance with the statutes and regulations that govern tax sales. Boddie v. Robinson, 430 A.2d 519, 522 (D.C. 1981). "If the District fails to comply in every respect with the statute and regulations, the sale is invalid and must be set aside." Associated Estates, LLC v. Caldwell, 779 A.2d 939, 943 (D.C. 2001) (citing Keatts v. Robinson, 544 A.2d 716, 719 (D.C. 1988)).

  5. Gore v. Newsome

    614 A.2d 40 (D.C. 1992)   Cited 7 times
    Taking care “to eschew overzealous application of the strict compliance rule” and holding notice of tax sale sufficient where abbreviation of homeowners' names did not “affect the accuracy of the notice or create a substantial risk that a record owner [would have] erroneously believe[d] the notice was intended for someone else”

    II. Neither side disputes the general principle that District of Columbia law requires strict compliance with the statutes and regulations governing tax sales of real property. Keatts v. Robinson, 544 A.2d 716, 719 (D.C. 1988); Frassetto v. Barry, 497 A.2d 109, 113-14 (D.C. 1985); Robinson v. Kerwin, 454 A.2d 1302, 1306 (D.C. 1983); Boddie v. Robinson, 430 A.2d 519, 522-23 (D.C. 1981); Shenandoah Corp. v. Pringle, 385 A.2d 748, 749-50 (D.C. 1978); Potomac Bldg. Corp. v. Karkenny, 364 A.2d 809, 812 (D.C. 1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 921, 97 S.Ct. 2192, 53 L.Ed.2d 234 (1977). The issue here is whether that rule prohibits a deviation, in the form of an abbreviated first name, from the full name of the property owner listed in the District's tax records when the government publishes or mails the required notices during the tax sale process.

  6. Keatts v. Robinson

    544 A.2d 716 (D.C. 1988)   Cited 10 times
    In Keatts, the Department mailed an "Income-Expense Form" to the owner's new address, and the property owner introduced into evidence a Department mailing list on which the property owner's former address was printed but which also contained a handwritten notation of his new address.

    "[T]he District may effect a valid conveyance of property for nonpayment of real estate taxes only by 'strict compliance' with the tax sale statute and regulations." Boddie v. Robinson, 430 A.2d 519, 522 (D.C. 1981) (citations omitted); accord, Frassetto v. Barry, supra, 497 A.2d at 113. Strict compliance is required "in order to guard against the deprivation of property without due process of law."

  7. Frassetto v. Barry

    497 A.2d 109 (D.C. 1985)   Cited 5 times
    In Frassetto this court considered a claim that the District had not filed a written report of a tax sale within twenty days, as required by D.C. Code § 47-1006 (1973).

    We have repeatedly warned that, " 'in order to guard against the deprivation of property without due process of law,' . . . the District may effect a valid conveyance of property for nonpayment of real estate taxes only by 'strict compliance' with the tax sale statute and regulations." Boddie v. Robinson, 430 A.2d 519, 521-22 (D.C. 1981) (quoting Potomac Building Corp. v. Karkenny, 364 A.2d 809, 812 (D.C. 1976) (per curiam), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 921, 97 S.Ct. 2192, 53 L.Ed.2d 234 (1977)); accord Robinson v. Kerwin, 454 A.2d at 1306; Watson v. Scheve, 424 A.2d 1089, 1092 (D.C. 1980); Shenandoah Corp. v. Pringle, 385 A.2d 748, 749-50 (D.C. 1978); Coleman v. Scheve, 367 A.2d 135, 138 (D.C. 1976). In 1819, Congress imposed a requirement that written reports of tax sales be filed with the Recorder of Deeds. Act of Feb. 20, 1819, ch. 35, § 2, 3 Stat. 486; King v. District of Columbia, 11 D.C. (MacArth. M.) 36, 40 (1879).

  8. 1417 Belmont Cmty. Dev. v. Dist. of Columbia

    302 A.3d 512 (D.C. 2023)   Cited 2 times

    "Service by [regular] mail is reasonably calculated to give notice in most circumstances." Coleman v. Scheve , 367 A.2d 135, 137 n.1 (D.C. 1976) ; see Boddie v. Robinson , 430 A.2d 519, 521 n.4 (D.C. 1981) ("Notice by mail generally satisfies due process demands."). Posting notice on the property in conjunction with mailing "affords an additional measure of notification."

  9. Rose v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

    73 A.3d 1047 (D.C. 2013)   Cited 8 times
    Explaining history of the District’s recordation statute

    Rose, however, invokes our line of cases which have applied a doctrine of strict compliance to defects in the nonjudicial foreclosure process and in the closely analogous situation of tax sales. In Boddie v. Robinson, 430 A.2d 519 (D.C.1981), we invalidated a tax sale in which the notice contained the wrong quadrant address (S.W. for N.W.) even though the post office properly delivered the letter. A few years later, we invoked the Boddie principle in invalidating a nonjudicial foreclosure where the bank had failed to send the notice by certified mail as the statute required, without regard to whether the owner had actual notice of the upcoming sale.

  10. Crusader as Custodian v. Heyward

    22 A.3d 744 (D.C. 2011)

    04(d) (2001) because the document assigning the lien to Breen Capital Services Corporation failed to state Heyward's name and the dollar amount due, including penalties and interest. Finally, relying on Boddie v. Robinson, 430 A.2d 519, 523 (D.C. 1981), the trial court determined that the lien was void because Crusader failed to notify Heyward of his statutory right to redeem his property, in that the notice was sent to the wrong address. Both chapters allow the District to sell real property with outstanding liens at a public auction, but the property owner must be notified of the delinquency.