Ark. Code Ann. § 18-60-608 (2020)
Effect of decree confirming sale
-
- The judgment or decree of the court confirming the sale shall operate as a complete bar against any and all persons who may thereafter claim the land in consequence of informality or illegality in the proceedings.
- The title to the land shall be considered as confirmed and complete in the purchaser thereof, his or her heirs and assigns forever, saving, however, to infants, persons of unsound mind, or individuals imprisoned overseas, the right to appear and contest the title to the land within one (1) year after their disabilities may be removed.
- The decree shall not be valid for any purpose as against the owner of the land, his heirs or assigns, who was, at the time of the decree rendered, in actual possession of it, unless he or she is made a party to the action by personal service of notice therein.
History. Rev. Stat., ch. 149, § 6; Acts 1893, No. 72, § 1, p. 117; C. & M. Dig., § 8391; Pope's Dig., § 10987; Acts 1939, No. 318, § 1; A.S.A. 1947, § 34-1923.
Case Notes
Certification.
A decree was not defective for clerk's failure to certify as to the official character of justice before whom proof was made. Webb v. Kelsey, 66 Ark. 180, 49 S.W. 819 (1899).
Persons Benefitted.
Where a purchaser of land at a tax sale conveyed it to another by warranty deed, a decree of confirmation of such tax title, rendered after such conveyance was made, will inure to the benefit of the grantee therein. Tupy v. Kocourek, 66 Ark. 433, 51 S.W. 69 (1899).
Persons Not Bound.
Where the owner of land has in fact paid his taxes, he is not required to look to the papers to see if his land is advertised, and if it is sold without actual notice to him, the sale cannot be confirmed. Wallace v. Brown, 22 Ark. 118 (1860).
Where a prior owner sold the land with warranty before a decree of confirmation, he was not bound to defend against the confirmation and is not estopped to show in a suit on his warranty that the tax sale was void. Lonergan v. Baber, 59 Ark. 15, 26 S.W. 13 (1894).
Person who had entered into contract to purchase land and who at time of tax sale was in actual possession but was not served was entitled to attack validity of confirmation decree. Heinen v. Dixon, 236 Ark. 1, 364 S.W.2d 153 (1963).
Persons under Disability.
Rights of minors to redeem are not barred by confirmation, but where parents from whom minors inherit were barred by laches, the minors did not acquire any rights. Avera v. Banks, 168 Ark. 718, 271 S.W. 970 (1925).
Possession.
A decree under this section confirming a tax title cannot preclude a party in possession of the land from the benefit arising from lapse of time prior to the rendition of the decree — the proceeding for confirmation being in no-wise a possessory proceeding. Buckingham v. Hallett, 24 Ark. 519 (1867).
Publication.
A decree was held not void for insufficiency of proof of publication. Porter v. Dooley, 66 Ark. 1, 49 S.W. 1083 (1898).
Redemption.
Confirmation does not preclude the right to redeem. Smith v. Thornton, 74 Ark. 572, 86 S.W. 1008 (1905).
Title.
All inquiry as to validity of the plaintiff's title is cut off by the decree of confirmation. Boehm v. Botsford, 52 Ark. 400, 12 S.W. 786 (1889).
Validity of Tax Sale.
A decree confirming a tax title cuts off all controversy as to mere irregularities of the original tax sale and forfeitures, such as errors as to the assessment and the return made thereof, the advertisement and the payments in part of the taxes, and any subsequent misconduct or mistake of the officers. Martin v. Hawkins, 62 Ark. 421, 35 S.W. 1104 (1896).
The invalidity of a tax sale is a meritorious defense to confirmation of title. Heinen v. Dixon, 236 Ark. 1, 364 S.W.2d 153 (1963).