Amendments.
The 2013 amendment subdivided (a) and (c); rewrote (b) and present (c)(2); in (c)(1), added “Except as provided in subdivision (c)(2) of this section,” and substituted “where” for “wherein”; and, in (e)(1), substituted “ten (10) days, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays” for “thirty (30) days” and inserted “by” preceding “paying”; and substituted “shall” for “will” in (e)(3).
The 2017 amendment substituted “offer to sell tax-delinquent land at a post-auction private sale” for “negotiate a private sale” at the end of (b)(1); rewrote (b)(2); added (b)(3); and substituted “post-auction private” for “negotiated” in (e)(1).
Research References
U. Ark. Little Rock L.J.
Arkansas Law Survey, Robertson, Property, 7 U. Ark. Little Rock L.J. 245.
Survey — Property, 10 U. Ark. Little Rock L.J. 605.
U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev.
Note, Constitutional & Property Law — Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause & Notice to Be Heard — It Felt So Right But Was All So Wrong: United States Supreme Court Rules Arkansas's Tax-Foreclosure Notice Procedure Fails to Satisfy Due Process Clause When Certified Mail Notice Returns “Unclaimed” (Jones v. Flowers, 126 S. Ct. 1708 (2006)), 30 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 179.
Case Notes
In General.
Where tax notices sent to landowner contained the sale dates and the tracts offered for sale at public auctions on those dates, but no legally-sufficient bid was received on the public sale date and a negotiated sale necessarily took place on a later date, the conveyance of each tract was in conformity with Arkansas law. Price v. Rylwell, LLC, 95 Ark. App. 228, 235 S.W.3d 908 (2006).
Bill's Printing, Inc. v. Carder, 161 S.W.3d 803 (Ark. 2004). · cites it 12דAs in Woods, Bill’s Printing was charged with notice that the Carders had a legitimate claim to Lot Fifteen and that the Scholeses had failed to redeem the land within thirty days of the tax sale, as required by Ark. Code Ann. § 26-37-202 (e) (Repl. 1997).”
Jones v. Flowers, 198 S.W.3d 520 (Ark. 2004). · cites it 8דThe Joneses raise the following arguments on appeal: (1) the trial court erred in ruling that Ark. Code Ann. § 26-37-202 (e) (Repl. 1997) is constitutional; and, (2) the trial court erred in ruling that the State was not required to locate Mr.”
Donathan v. McDill, 800 S.W.2d 433 (Ark. 1990). · cites it 2דAfter the sale, McDill informed the executor of the estate which owned the land about the sale and the estate’s right to redeem the land by payment of all taxes due within 30 days of the date of the sale.”
Morris v. Landnpulaski, LLC, 309 S.W.3d 212 (Ark. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2דSee Ark.Code Ann. §§ 26-37-202(e) |sand 203(a) (Repl.”
Citifinancial Mortg. Co., Inc. v. Matthews, 271 S.W.3d 501 (Ark. 2008). “Arkansas Code Annotated § 26-37-202(b) (Repl. 1997 & Supp. 2007) simply instructs that if there are no bids for the property at its assessed value, the Commissioner may negotiate a sale.”
Price v. Rylwell, LLC, 235 S.W.3d 908 (Ark. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 4דIn fact, Ark. Code Ann. § 26-37-202 (b) (Repl. 1997) provides that, when no bid is received at the sale that is at least equal to the assessed value of the land, the Commissioner is authorized to enter into negotiations for the sale of the land in question, subject to the…”
Gray-Quintin v. Town of Williamstown (Vt. Super. Ct. 2012). “at 224 (citing Ark. Code Ann. § 26-37-202 (e)(1)). More importantly, defendant has not cited any legal support for the proposition that a post-sale redemption period excuses the government’s obligation to provide notice to a taxpayer before selling her property.”
Ark. Code Ann. § 26-37-202(b): 1 case
Citifinancial Mortg. Co., Inc. v. Matthews, 271 S.W.3d 501 (Ark. 2008). “Arkansas Code Annotated § 26-37-202(b) (Repl. 1997 & Supp. 2007) simply instructs that if there are no bids for the property at its assessed value, the Commissioner may negotiate a sale.”
Ark. Code Ann. § 26-37-202(e): 4 cases
Jones v. Flowers, 198 S.W.3d 520 (Ark. 2004). “The Joneses raise the following arguments on appeal: (1) the trial court erred in ruling that Ark. Code Ann. § 26-37-202 (e) (Repl. 1997) is constitutional; and, (2) the trial court erred in ruling that the State was not required to locate Mr.”
Bill's Printing, Inc. v. Carder, 161 S.W.3d 803 (Ark. 2004). “As in Woods, Bill’s Printing was charged with notice that the Carders had a legitimate claim to Lot Fifteen and that the Scholeses had failed to redeem the land within thirty days of the tax sale, as required by Ark. Code Ann. § 26-37-202 (e) (Repl. 1997).”
Morris v. Landnpulaski, LLC, 309 S.W.3d 212 (Ark. Ct. App. 2009). “See Ark.Code Ann. §§ 26-37-202(e) |sand 203(a) (Repl.”
Price v. Rylwell, LLC, 235 S.W.3d 908 (Ark. Ct. App. 2006). “In fact, Ark. Code Ann. § 26-37-202 (b) (Repl. 1997) provides that, when no bid is received at the sale that is at least equal to the assessed value of the land, the Commissioner is authorized to enter into negotiations for the sale of the land in question, subject to the…”
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.