Henkel v. Triangle Homes , 249 N.C. App. 478 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •               IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA
    No. COA15-1123
    Filed: 20 September 2016
    Avery County, No. 14 CVS 268
    EVERETT E. HENKEL, JR., Plaintiff,
    v.
    TRIANGLE HOMES, INC., Defendant.
    Appeal by Defendant from final order and judgment entered 25 May 2016 by
    Judge Gary M. Gavenus in Avery County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of
    Appeals 31 March 2016.
    Di Santi Watson Capua Wilson & Garrett, PLLC, by Anthony S. di Santi, for
    Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Asheville Law Group, by Michael G. Wimer and Jake A. Snider, for Defendant-
    Appellant.
    INMAN, Judge.
    A deed to real property obtained at a foreclosure sale without notice to the
    United States does not extinguish a pre-existing federal tax lien on the property.
    Triangle Homes, Inc. (“Defendant”) appeals from the trial court’s 29 May 2015
    judgment in favor of Everett Henkel (“Plaintiff”) in a quiet title action. Defendant
    contends that (1) the trial court erred because North Carolina is a “pure race”
    jurisdiction and Defendant recorded its deed prior to Plaintiff recording his deed; (2)
    the local tax lien was superior to the federal tax lien and therefore extinguished the
    HENKEL V. TRIANGLE HOMES
    Opinion of the Court
    federal tax lien upon foreclosure; and (3) the federal tax lien was discharged when
    the Internal Revenue Service issued its Deed of Real Estate to Plaintiff.
    After careful review, we affirm the trial court’s order.
    I.     Factual and Procedural History
    On 31 January 2007 Zodie and Sage Johnson conveyed to Garry and Amanda
    Lynch (“the Lynches”) a warranty deed for Lot 87 of Mushroom Park Subdivision
    (“the Parcel”) in Avery County, North Carolina. The Lynches recorded the deed with
    the Avery County Register of Deeds Office on 2 February 2008.           Following the
    conveyance, a series of federal and municipal property tax liens were levied against
    the Parcel. The first of these was a federal tax lien for the amount of $888,765.42
    issued on 7 December 2011 and recorded by the United States with the Avery County
    Register of Deeds Office on 29 December 2011. The second was a federal tax lien for
    the amount of $877,490.42 issued on 27 August 2012 and recorded by the United
    States with the Avery County Register of Deeds Office on 4 September 2012. The
    third lien was for a tax liability to the Village of Sugar Mountain (“the Village”), an
    incorporated municipality.
    On 12 February 2013, the Village filed a complaint in Avery County District
    Court alleging the Lynches had failed to pay local property taxes for the Parcel in the
    amount of $2,575.16. On 23 September 2013 the district court entered a Default
    Judgment against the Lynches and issued a notice of foreclosure sale scheduled for
    -2-
    HENKEL V. TRIANGLE HOMES
    Opinion of the Court
    13 November 2013. Although federal statute 26 U.S.C. § 7425(a) required notice to
    be given to the United States, at no point before or during the district court action or
    the foreclosure sale following that action was the United States joined as a party or
    provided notice.
    The Village’s judicial tax foreclosure sale took place on 13 November 2013 at
    10:00 a.m. No one attended the sale except for a representative of the Village, which
    was the highest bidder with a purchase price of $6,673.73.
    The following day, 14 November 2013, the federal tax lien foreclosure sale was
    held and the Parcel was sold to Plaintiff for a total purchase price of $172,000 with a
    deposit of $20,000 paid at the foreclosure sale. It was made known to the attendants
    at the second foreclosure sale that there had been a prior foreclosure sale the day
    before on a municipal tax lien. After several conversations, a representative for the
    Village, the highest bidder at the municipal tax foreclosure sale, agreed to assign any
    interest it had in the Parcel to the highest bidder at the federal tax foreclosure sale.
    Plaintiff received a “Receipt for Deposit” and “Notice to Purchaser or Purchaser’s
    Assignee” for this sale on 14 November 2013.
    On this same day, approximately four hours after the federal tax lien
    foreclosure sale, and with proper notice of the federal tax lien foreclosure sale and the
    events occurring therein, Defendant filed an upset bid on the Village’s judicial
    foreclosure sale in the amount of $7,423.73. Following the filing of this upset bid, an
    -3-
    HENKEL V. TRIANGLE HOMES
    Opinion of the Court
    attorney for the Village warned Defendant’s principal about the federal tax lien and
    foreclosure sale, explained that the deed Defendant was purchasing was a quitclaim
    deed with no warranties so that Defendant was unlikely to be able to obtain a clean
    title, and offered to refund Defendant’s deposit. Defendant’s principal acknowledged
    his understanding and proceeded to affirm his upset bid.1
    On or before 14 December 2013, Plaintiff tendered the remaining balance for
    the purchase price to the Internal Revenue Service. On 16 December 2013, Plaintiff
    received a Form 2435 Certificate of Sale of Seized Property.
    On 3 January 2014, Defendant filed a Motion Confirming Foreclosure Sale
    with the Avery County District Court, seeking to confirm its upset bid. The district
    court entered a Final Report and Accounting of Foreclosure Sale for the Village’s
    judicial foreclosure, awarding the Parcel to Defendant for the amount of $7,423.73 on
    21 January 2014. On or about this date, Defendant paid the final purchase price and
    an attorney for the Village drafted and executed a Commissioner’s Deed, which
    Defendant recorded on 7 April 2014.
    1 After obtaining the quitclaim deed for $7,423.73 in November 2013, Defendant’s principal,
    on behalf of Defendant, entered into a contract to sell the Parcel to third parties for $144,000.00 and
    promised to convey fee simple marketable title, free of all liens. Defendant’s principal did not disclose
    to the third parties the federal tax lien or the fact that Plaintiff had purchased the Parcel in the federal
    tax foreclosure sale. After the North Carolina Real Estate Commission accused Defendant’s principal,
    James McClure, of improper, fraudulent and/or dishonest dealing in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 93A-
    6(a)(10) as the result of his conduct with regard to the Parcel, Mr. McClure voluntarily surrendered
    his North Carolina real estate broker’s license.
    -4-
    HENKEL V. TRIANGLE HOMES
    Opinion of the Court
    On 20 May 2014, following a statutory 180-day waiting period in which no one
    redeemed the property following the federal tax foreclosure sale, Plaintiff mailed the
    Certificate of Sale of Seized Property to the Internal Revenue Service. On 28 May
    2014, Plaintiff received a Deed of Real Estate from the Internal Revenue Service.
    Plaintiff recorded the deed on 6 June 2014 with the Avery County Register of Deeds
    Office.
    Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant on 15 October 2014 in Avery
    County Superior Court seeking quiet title in the Parcel. Following Defendant’s
    Answer, both parties filed Motions for Summary Judgment. The cross-motions were
    heard on 11 May 2015. On 25 May 2015, the trial court entered summary judgment
    in favor of Plaintiff, declaring Plaintiff “the owner in fee simple” of the Parcel and
    awarding Plaintiff his costs incurred in the action.
    Defendant timely filed a Notice of Appeal.
    II.   Analysis
    A. Standard of Review
    “An award of summary judgment is appropriate ‘if the pleadings, depositions,
    answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,
    show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that any party is entitled to
    judgment as a matter of law.’ ” Austin Maintenance & Constr., Inc. v. Crowder Constr.
    Co., 
    224 N.C. App. 401
    , 407, 
    742 S.E.2d 535
    , 540 (2012) (quoting N.C. Gen. Stat. §
    -5-
    HENKEL V. TRIANGLE HOMES
    Opinion of the Court
    1A-1, Rule 56(c)). On appeal, the standard of review from summary judgment “is
    whether there is any genuine issue of material fact and whether the moving party is
    entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” 
    Id. at 408,
    742 S.E.2d at 541 (internal
    citations omitted). A trial court’s decision granting summary judgment is reviewed
    de novo. 
    Id. (citing Va.
    Elec. & Power Co. v. Tillett, 
    80 N.C. App. 383
    , 385, 
    343 S.E.2d 188
    , 191 (1986)).
    B. North Carolina as a “pure race” jurisdiction
    Defendant first contends that its deed should prevail because it was the first
    to record a deed with the Avery County Register of Deeds Office. We disagree.
    Defendant’s argument relies on N.C. Gen. Stat. § 47-18(a), North Carolina’s
    recordation statute, which provides:
    No (i) conveyance of land, or (ii) contract to convey, or (iii) option to
    convey, or (iv) lease of land for more than three years shall be valid to
    pass any property interest as against lien creditors or purchasers for a
    valuable consideration from the donor, bargainer or lesser but from the
    time of registration thereof in the county where the land lies . . . .
    N.C. Gen. Stat. § 47-18(a) (2015). This statute makes North Carolina a “pure race”
    jurisdiction, “in which the first to record an interest in land holds an interest superior
    to all other purchases for value, regardless of actual or constructive notice as to other,
    unrecorded conveyances.” Rowe v. Walker 
    114 N.C. App. 36
    , 39, 
    441 S.E.2d 156
    , 158
    (1994). N.C. Gen. Stat. § 47-18(a) applies “[w]here a grantor conveys the same
    property to two different purchasers,” and results in “the first purchaser to record his
    -6-
    HENKEL V. TRIANGLE HOMES
    Opinion of the Court
    deed win[ning] the ‘race to the Register of Deeds’ Office’ and thereby defeat[ing] the
    other’s claim to the property, even if he has actual notice of the conveyance to the
    other purchaser.”      
    Id. (internal citations
    omitted).   This statute, however, is
    inapplicable to the case at hand.
    At the time of the Village’s judicial foreclosure sale, there were three prior
    recorded tax liens on the Parcel: the Village’s municipal tax lien and the two federal
    tax liens. Generally, in North Carolina, municipal tax liens are superior to federal
    tax liens. Title 26 of the United States Code Section 6323(b)(6) governs the validity
    of federal tax liens and provides as follows:
    (b) Protection for certain interests even though notice
    filed.--Even though notice of a lien imposed by section 6321
    has been filed, such lien shall not be valid--
    [. . .]
    (6) Real property tax and special assessment liens.--With
    respect to real property, as against a holder of a lien upon
    such property, if such lien is entitled under local law to
    priority over security interest in such property which are
    prior in time, and such lien secures payment of--
    (A) a tax of general application levied by any taxing
    authority based upon the value of such property;
    26 U.S.C. § 6323(b)(6) (2012). North Carolina law grants priority to the local tax liens
    described in Section 6323(b)(6) over federal tax liens:
    (a) On Real Property.--The lien of taxes imposed on real
    and personal property shall attach to real property at the
    time prescribed in G.S. 105-355(a). The priority of that lien
    -7-
    HENKEL V. TRIANGLE HOMES
    Opinion of the Court
    shall be determined in accordance with the following rules:
    (1) Subject to the provisions of the Revenue Act prescribing
    the priority of the lien for State taxes, the lien of taxes
    imposed under the provisions of this Subchapter shall be
    superior to all other liens, assessments, charges, rights,
    and claims of any and every kind in and to the real property
    to which the lien for taxes attaches regardless of the
    claimant and regardless of whether acquired prior or
    subsequent to the attachment of the lien for taxes.
    N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105-356(a)(1) (2015). Therefore, a federal tax lien is junior to any
    local tax lien.
    Generally, foreclosure of a senior lien extinguishes all junior liens. Dixieland
    Realty Co. v. Wysor, 
    272 N.C. 172
    , 175, 
    158 S.E.2d 7
    , 10 (1967) (“Ordinarily, all
    encumbrances and liens which the mortgagor or trustor imposed on the property
    subsequent to the execution and recording of the senior mortgage or deed of trust will
    be extinguished by sale under foreclosure of the senior instrument.”) (citing St. Louis
    Union Trust Co. v. Foster, 
    211 N.C. 331
    , 
    190 S.E. 522
    (1937)). To ensure a valid
    foreclosure sale, a senior lien holder must follow certain procedures. N.C. Gen. Stat.
    § 1-339.1 et seq. governs the procedures for judicial foreclosure sales, however, where
    property is subject to a federal tax lien, federal law imposes additional procedures.
    The general rule making federal tax liens inferior to local tax liens applies only
    when the United States is provided prior notice of a foreclosure sale arising from a
    local tax liability. 26 U.S.C. § 7425(a) (2012) provides that a senior lien holder
    foreclosing on property subject to a federal tax lien must provide the United States
    -8-
    HENKEL V. TRIANGLE HOMES
    Opinion of the Court
    with notice prior to the foreclosure sale. If the United States has not been provided
    notice of a judicial foreclosure proceeding, any federal tax lien on the foreclosed
    property remains undisturbed. 26 U.S.C. § 7425(a) provides in pertinent part:
    (a) Judicial proceedings.--If the United States is not joined
    as a party, a judgment in any civil action or suit described
    in subsection (a) of section 2410 of Title 28 of the United
    States Code, or a judicial sale pursuant to such a judgment,
    with respect to property on which the United States has or
    claims a lien under the provisions of this title--
    (1) shall be made subject to and without disturbing the lien
    of the United States, if notice of such lien has been filed in
    the place provided by law for such filing at the time such
    action or suit is commenced . . . .
    When federal and state law conflict, i.e., “where state law stands as an obstacle
    to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of
    Congress[,]” federal law preempts state law. Guyton v. FM Lending Servs., Inc., 
    199 N.C. App. 30
    , 44-45, 
    681 S.E.2d 465
    , 476 (2009). Therefore, a foreclosure proceeding
    and sale will not disturb or extinguish a previously recorded federal tax lien unless
    the United States is properly notified and made a party to the proceeding. See, e.g.,
    Myers v. U.S., 
    647 F.2d 591
    , 596-97 (5th Cir. 1981) (“Although under state law the
    inferior mortgages and liens were discharged by the foreclosure sale, . . . if the proper
    type of notice required by federal statute is not afforded where so required, the federal
    tax lien then remains unaffected by the foreclosure process and will follow the
    property into the hands of the subsequent purchaser . . . .”).
    -9-
    HENKEL V. TRIANGLE HOMES
    Opinion of the Court
    It is undisputed that the federal tax liens against the Parcel were properly
    issued and recorded in the Avery County Register of Deeds Office on 29 December
    2011 and 4 September 2012. Approximately one year later, and before the federal
    liens were discharged, the Village filed a complaint in Avery County District Court
    and was granted a Default Judgment for a tax deficiency on the Parcel.               The
    undisputed facts further establish that the United States was not made a party to
    the judicial foreclosure proceedings that followed the Default Judgment. Therefore,
    the federal tax liens survived the judicial foreclosure sale and Defendant took the
    Parcel subject to these liens.
    The United States and the Internal Revenue Service have a right to levy and
    sell any real property in an effort to collect on unpaid taxes. 26 U.S.C. § 6330 et seq.
    (2012) “The term ‘levy’ as used in this title includes the power of distraint and seizure
    by any means.” 26 U.S.C. § 6331(b). Following a sale pursuant to Section 6335, “[t]he
    owners . . . or any person having any interest therein, . . . shall be permitted to redeem
    the property sold, or any particular tract of such property, at any time within 180
    days after the sale thereof.” 26 U.S.C. § 6337(b)(1) (emphasis added).
    Defendant’s purchase of the Parcel as the upset bidder from the 13 November
    2013 foreclosure sale discharged the local tax lien and Defendant was conveyed a
    quitclaim deed by the Village. “A quitclaim deed conveys only the interest of the
    grantor, whatever it is, no more and no less.” Heath v. Turner, 
    309 N.C. 483
    , 491,
    - 10 -
    HENKEL V. TRIANGLE HOMES
    Opinion of the Court
    
    308 S.E.2d 244
    , 248 (1983) (citing Hayes v. Ricard, 
    245 N.C. 687
    , 691, 
    97 S.E.2d 105
    ,
    108 (1952)).
    Because the Village’s foreclosure action and judicial foreclosure sale violated
    federal law by failing to provide notice to, and joining as a party, the United States,
    and occurred prior to the federal tax lien foreclosure sale, Defendant’s quitclaim deed
    was conveyed subject to the federal tax lien. Defendant’s deed granted it the right to
    redeem the Parcel from the federal tax foreclosure sale pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6337,
    
    quoted supra
    . However, Defendant failed to redeem within the 180 days prescribed
    by law, and therefore, forfeited any rights it had to the Parcel.
    Because Defendant’s claim to the Parcel based upon the quitclaim deed was
    subordinate to Plaintiff’s claim based upon the superior federal tax lien, North
    Carolina’s recordation statute, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 47-18(a), does not apply. Winning
    the race to the courthouse does not upset the rules of lien priority established by state
    and federal law, including federal preemption when those laws conflict.
    Defendant was put on notice of the federal tax lien foreclosure sale following
    the judicial foreclosure sale and had the opportunity to exercise its right to redeem
    the Parcel. However, Defendant did not exercise this right within the redemption
    period and consequently severed its claim to the Parcel. Defendant’s argument that
    the discharge of the federal lien as to Plaintiff, as a result of the federal tax foreclosure
    sale, also extinguished the lien as to Defendant is without merit.
    - 11 -
    HENKEL V. TRIANGLE HOMES
    Opinion of the Court
    III.   Conclusion
    For the reasons stated above we affirm the trial court’s order granting
    Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and denying Defendant’s Motion for
    Summary Judgment and Judgment as a Matter of Law.
    AFFIRMED.
    Judges DIETZ and TYSON concur.
    - 12 -