Ark. Code Ann. » Title 18 Chapter 60
Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 18-60-607 (2020)

Confirmation of sale

✓ Arkansas Code release r76: Acts through about 2020 (2021-2025 sessions missing)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
  1. There should be no confirmation of the sale of any lands that are in actual possession of any person claiming title adverse to the petitioner, nor shall there be any confirmation of the sale of lands unless the petitioner or his or her grantor or those under whom he or she claims title submits proof that all taxes owed on the lands have been paid, settled, or released.
  2. With respect to land in levee and drainage improvement districts, there shall be no confirmation of sale unless title has been acquired as referred to in § 18-60-601, nor unless the petitioner or his or her grantor or grantors exhibit proof of payment, settlement, or release of all taxes that are due against the lands in the districts at the time of the rendition of the decree of confirmation by the court.

History. Rev. Stat., ch. 149, § 3; Acts 1893, No. 95, § 2, p. 165; C. & M. Dig., § 8383; Pope's Dig., § 10979; Acts 1951, No. 263, § 2; A.S.A. 1947, § 34-1920; Acts 2007, No. 1037, § 5.

Case Notes

Applicability.

This section applies only to actions in rem. Kanuff v. National Cooperage Co., 87 Ark. 494, 113 S.W. 28 (1908).

This section has no application to an action for confirmation of title to undivided interests in mineral rights. Schuman v. Certain Lands, 223 Ark. 85, 264 S.W.2d 413 (1954).

Adverse Possession.

A plaintiff cannot maintain a suit in equity to confirm a tax title to land held adversely by the defendant. Pearman v. Pearman, 144 Ark. 528, 222 S.W. 1064 (1920).

Equitable Title.

A decree of confirmation of a tax title is not invalid because the notice alleges that the legal title was in the petitioner when he held only the equitable title, nor because the petitioner had contracted to sell the land when the title was confirmed. Ingram v. Sherwood, 75 Ark. 176, 87 S.W. 435 (1905).

Tax Payments.

The three consecutive annual payments of taxes may consist of one payment made before and two after expiration of period of redemption. Porter v. Tallman, 68 Ark. 211, 56 S.W. 1071 (1900).

Confirmation decree is not valid, if owners of tax title fail to pay taxes as required by subsection (a). Hensley v. Phillips, 215 Ark. 543, 221 S.W.2d 412 (1949).

Cited: Fulkerson v. Calhoun, 58 Ark. 63, 58 Ark. App. 63, 946 S.W.2d 714 (1997).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1997–2007 · leading case: Fulkerson v. Calhoun, 946 S.W.2d 714 (Ark. Ct. App. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Fulkerson v. Calhoun, 946 S.W.2d 714 (Ark. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 4× “Less than three months later (in violation of the deed confirmation requirements of Ark. Code Ann. § 18-60-607 (1987)), appellant presented the deed from the Land Commissioner to the chancery court seeking to quiet title in the parcel, without naming appellees as interested…”
In Re Paro, 362 B.R. 419 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 2007). · cites it 2× “of such land may attack a decree quieting title to such land because such person was not personally served. See Heinen v.”
Ark. Code Ann. § 18-60-607(a): 1 case
In Re Paro, 362 B.R. 419 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 2007). “of such land may attack a decree quieting title to such land because such person was not personally served. See Heinen v.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.