Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 48-4-48 | Car Wreck Lawyer

TITLE 48 REVENUE AND TAXATION

Section 4. Tax Sales, 48-4-1 through 48-4-112.

ARTICLE 3 REDEMPTION OF PROPERTY SOLD FOR TAXES

48-4-48. Ripening of tax deed title by prescription.

  1. A title under a tax deed properly executed at a valid and legal sale prior to July 1, 1989, shall ripen by prescription after a period of seven years from the date of execution of that deed.
  2. A title under a tax deed executed on or after July 1, 1989, but before July 1, 1996, shall ripen by prescription after a period of four years from the execution of that deed. A title under a tax deed properly executed on or after July 1, 1996, at a valid and legal sale shall ripen by prescription after a period of four years from the recordation of that deed in the land records in the county in which said land is located.
  3. A tax deed which has ripened by prescription pursuant to any provision of this Code section shall convey, when the defendant in fi. fa. is not laboring under any legal disability, a fee simple title to the property described in that deed, and that title shall vest absolutely in the grantee in the deed or in the grantee's heirs or assigns. In the event the defendant in fi. fa. is laboring under any legal disability, the prescriptive term specified in this Code section shall begin from the time the disabilities are removed or abated.
  4. Notice of foreclosure of the right to redeem property sold at a tax sale shall not be required to have been provided in order for the title to such property to have ripened under subsection (a) or (b) of this Code section.

(Ga. L. 1949, p. 1132, § 1; Code 1933, § 91A-438, enacted by Ga. L. 1978, p. 309, § 2; Ga. L. 1989, p. 1391, § 3; Ga. L. 1996, p. 783, § 1.)

Law reviews.

- For annual survey article discussing real property law, see 51 Mercer L. Rev. 441 (1999). For annual survey article on real property law, see 52 Mercer L. Rev. 383 (2000). For annual survey of real property law, see 58 Mercer L. Rev. 367 (2006).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Editor's notes.

- In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under Ga. L. 1949, p. 1132, § 2-A, are included in the annotations for this Code section.

Vesting of rights.

- Decision to award a limited liability company fee simple title in real property did not violate the contract impairment clauses in U.S. Const. Art. I, Sec. 10 and Ga. Const. 1983, Art. I, Sec. I, Para. X as a corporation's rights to the property pursuant to a 1984 tax deed had not vested prior to the effective date of a 1989 amendment of O.C.G.A. § 48-4-48, which operated retrospectively. BX Corp. v. Hickory Hill 1185, LLC, 285 Ga. 5, 673 S.E.2d 205 (2009).

If levy of tax execution is excessive, sale held under levy is void. Craig v. Arnold, 227 Ga. 333, 180 S.E.2d 733 (1971) (decided under Ga. L. 1949, p. 1132, § 2-A).

Adverse possession by the tax deed grantee required.

- Tax grantee's title did not ripen since the grantee never occupied the property nor committed any acts or exhibited any conduct which would amount to adverse possession of the property for the requisite period. Blizzard v. Moniz, 271 Ga. 50, 518 S.E.2d 407 (1999).

Since a tax deed holder never occupied the property or engaged in any act evidencing ownership other than payment of taxes, the trial court erred in finding that the tax deed holder had prescriptive title and in refusing to allow a successor in title to redeem the property. O.C.G.A. § 48-4-48 was not a statute of repose operating to foreclose the right of redemption upon the mere passage of time. Mark Turner Props., Inc. v. Evans, 274 Ga. 547, 554 S.E.2d 492 (2001).

Because a tax deed was executed after the effective date of the amendment to O.C.G.A. § 48-4-48, the trial court erred in ruling that title vested in a county by the passage of time and in granting summary judgment to its purchaser; the case was remanded for further proceedings since there were questions, inter alia, on the purchaser's entitlement to a prescriptive title. Cmty. Renewal & Redemption, LLC v. Nix, 279 Ga. 840, 621 S.E.2d 722 (2005).

Limited liability company (LLC) was entitled to fee simple title to property conveyed by a warranty deed after the LLC redeemed the property under O.C.G.A. § 48-4-42 as to a 1984 tax deed held by a corporation because title had not ripened in the corporation under O.C.G.A. § 48-4-48 as the corporation had not established adverse possession. BX Corp. v. Hickory Hill 1185, LLC, 285 Ga. 5, 673 S.E.2d 205 (2009).

In a quiet title action under O.C.G.A. § 23-3-60, although a corporation with a 1984 tax deed to the property in dispute claimed that ripening of title had occurred under O.C.G.A. § 48-4-48 as the corporation held the tax deed for the required seven-year period under a former version of the statute, a 1989 amendment that applied expressly to tax deeds executed prior to July 1, 1989, required adverse possession by the tax deed grantee in order for title to ripen. BX Corp. v. Hickory Hill 1185, LLC, 285 Ga. 5, 673 S.E.2d 205 (2009).

Successor in interest to the owner of property had successfully redeemed the property from the purchaser of a tax deed by tendering an adequate amount, O.C.G.A. § 48-4-40(2), although it was refused by the purchaser; the court rejected the purchaser's claim that the purchaser acquired title by prescription under O.C.G.A. § 48-4-48 because the prescriptive period was not met and the purchaser's possession of the unfenced, uninhabited property was not sufficiently adverse. Nix v. 230 Kirkwood Homes, LLC, 300 Ga. 91, 793 S.E.2d 402 (2016).

Insufficient showing of actual possession.

- Trial court did not err when the court concluded that a buyer's tax deed did not ripen by prescription into a fee simple title because neither the buyer's payments of taxes nor occasional cleanup and mowing of areas were sufficiently notorious or exclusive as to constitute actual possession. Washington v. McKibbon Hotel Group, Inc., 284 Ga. 262, 664 S.E.2d 201 (2008).

Exercise of right of redemption required.

- It was incumbent upon parties claiming a right to redemption actually to exercise the right during the four-year period; the filing of a civil action alleging the existence of that unexercised right was not sufficient. Machen v. Wolande Mgt. Group, Inc., 271 Ga. 163, 517 S.E.2d 58 (1999).

State of title held by purchaser or purchaser's grantee pending period of redemption.

- Trial court properly granted summary judgment to an association, and the association's employee and a board member, on the claims by a property purchaser against them for extortion and removal of liens arising out of the purchaser's failure to pay association fees after the purchaser purchased seven properties in a subdivision through a tax sale resulting from unpaid property taxes; while it was true that the purchaser did not obtain a fee simple absolute title, and that title could be restored to specified predecessors through redemption or before the purchaser gave notice pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 48-4-45, the purchaser did receive title sufficient to trigger automatic membership in the association and was thus required to pay the association's assessed fees. Croft v. Fairfield Plantation Prop. Owners Ass'n, 276 Ga. App. 311, 623 S.E.2d 531 (2005).

Cited in Moultrie v. Wright, 266 Ga. 30, 464 S.E.2d 194 (1995).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 30 Am. Jur. 2d, Executions, § 462.

ALR.

- Necessity of actual possession to give title by adverse possession under invalid tax title, 22 A.L.R. 550.

Necessity of recording tax deed to protect title as against interest derived from former owner, 65 A.L.R. 1015.

Statute limiting period for attack on tax title as affecting remaindermen in respect of a tax sale during life tenancy, 124 A.L.R. 1145.

Time limitation for attack on tax title as affected by defective description of property in the assessment or the tax deed, 133 A.L.R. 570.

Payment, tender, or deposit of tax as condition of injunction against issuance of tax deed upon ground that it had become barred by lapse of time or that the property had been redeemed, 134 A.L.R. 543.

Cases Citing O.C.G.A. § 48-4-48

Total Results: 14  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

Land USA, LLC v. Georgia Power Co., 297 Ga. 237 (Ga. 2015).

Cited 27 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 1, 2015 | 773 S.E.2d 236

...7 Statutes governing tax sales are primarily found in Chapter 4 of Title 48 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, the provisions of which are divided into Articles 1 through 5. Article 3, encompassing OCGA §§ 48-4-40 through 48-4-48, deals with the statutory right of redemption following a tax sale. 8 See OCGA § 48-4-40. 9 Once the statutory redemption period expires, OCGA § 48-4-45 gives the tax sale purchaser, or his heirs, successo...
Copy

Mark Turner Props., Inc. v. Evans, 554 S.E.2d 492 (Ga. 2001).

Cited 16 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Nov 5, 2001 | 274 Ga. 547, 2001 Fulton County D. Rep. 3324

...50, 53, 518 S.E.2d 407 (1999); Moultrie v. Wright, 266 Ga. 30, 32(1), 464 S.E.2d 194 (1995). After the expiration of 12 months, the right to redeem may, under current law, be "barred by either the giving of notice under OCGA § 48-4-45 or the ripening of title by prescription under OCGA § 48-4-48 (1989)." Blizzard v....
...ever, the trial court did not rely on any other conduct by or on behalf of Ms. Evans. As stated in OCGA § 44-5-160, title acquired by prescription requires continuance of possession for a period of time fixed by law.... [T]he plain language of OCGA § 48-4-48 (1989) requires such adverse possession by the tax deed grantee in order for title to ripen under the statute. (Emphasis in original.) Blizzard v. Moniz, supra at 54, 518 S.E.2d 407. Thus, contrary to Ms. Evans' assertion and the trial court's order, OCGA § 48-4-48 is not a statute of repose which operates to foreclose the right of redemption upon the mere passage of time....
Copy

Saffo v. Foxworthy, Inc., 687 S.E.2d 463 (Ga. 2009).

Cited 13 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Nov 23, 2009 | 286 Ga. 284, 2009 Fulton County D. Rep. 3642

...law. Before addressing the Saffos' specific claims, a review of the relevant statutory scheme is in order. The article of the Georgia Code governing redemption of property following a tax sale to satisfy unpaid taxes consists of OCGA §§ 48-4-40 to 48-4-48....
Copy

Cmty. Renewal & Redemption, LLC v. Nix, 621 S.E.2d 722 (Ga. 2005).

Cited 13 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Nov 7, 2005 | 279 Ga. 840, 2005 Fulton County D. Rep. 3352

...ummary judgment was error. 1. The trial court based its conclusion that title had vested in DeKalb County prior to the sale to Nix on this Court's holding in Moultrie v. Wright, 266 Ga. 30(1), 464 S.E.2d 194 (1995), that under the provisions of OCGA § 48-4-48 as it was at the time of the tax sale in that case, the expiration of a statutorily-designated period without an effort to redeem placed the purchaser's title beyond defeasance through redemption. Moultrie v. Wright, supra, followed the holding in Patterson v. Florida Realty &c. Corp., 212 Ga. 440(1)(a), 93 S.E.2d 571 (1956), that the predecessor to OCGA § 48-4-48 "provided a method for perfecting title to property sold under an execution for taxes." The language on which Moultrie and Patterson were based was the second sentence of section 2-A of the statute which provided in pertinent part as follows: "Any tax deed properly executed at a valid and legal sale... shall convey after the expiration of seven years from the date of the tax deed a fee simple title...." Ga. L.1949, pp. 1132, 1133, § 2-A. However, in a special concurrence in Moultrie, Justice Carley pointed out OCGA § 48-4-48 was amended in 1989 to remove that language and the statute now makes clear that for all tax deeds executed after July 1, 1989, the ripening of title must occur by prescription, not by the mere passage of time. Citing that concurrence, this Court held in Blizzard v. Moniz, 271 Ga. 50, 54, 518 S.E.2d 407 (1999), that "the plain language of OCGA § 48-4-48 ......
...48-4-42. That right exists for at least 12 months (OCGA § 48-4-40(1)), and continues thereafter until the right of redemption is foreclosed by notice pursuant to OCGA § 48-4-45 or by the ripening of the purchaser's title through prescription. OCGA § 48-4-48.
Copy

Blizzard v. Moniz, 518 S.E.2d 407 (Ga. 1999).

Cited 13 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | May 3, 1999 | 271 Ga. 50, 99 Fulton County D. Rep. 1764

...This is an appeal by defendant Blizzard from a judgment in favor of plaintiffs Moniz and Hammock in their action to remove a cloud upon the title to certain real property which Blizzard claims ownership to through a tax sale deed and the ripening of title under OCGA § 48-4-48 (1989)....
...therein was too indefinite and the levy excessive; Blizzard failed to foreclose the right of redemption because he did not comply with the notice requirements of OCGA § 48-4-45; and title under the tax deed did not ripen by prescription under OCGA § 48-4-48 (1989) because Blizzard was never in possession of the property....
...The court ordered that Moniz and Hammock might redeem the property by paying $9,252.21 [6] to Blizzard in exchange for Blizzard's immediate execution and delivery of a quitclaim deed conveying all of his interest in the property to them. Blizzard contends that the court erred because OCGA § 48-4-48 acts as a statute of limitation, that his title to the property ripened after four years from the date of execution of the tax deed, and consequently, the plaintiffs' right to redeem the property was statutorily foreclosed....
...But even accepting, for the sake of argument, the validity of the tax sale to Blizzard, the undisputed circumstances show that the plaintiffs' right to redeem the property was not barred by either the giving of notice under OCGA § 48-4-45 or the ripening of title by prescription under OCGA § 48-4-48 (1989)....
...Therefore, one seeking to bar redemption under OCGA § 48-4-45 must comply with its notice requirements. Blizzard did not do so. Thus, the remaining question is whether the right to redeem was foreclosed by the statutory ripening of Blizzard's title. And the answer is no. OCGA § 48-4-48(b) (1989), applicable to this case, provides that title "shall ripen by prescription after a period of four years from the date of execution of [a tax deed executed on or after July 1, 1989]." (Emphasis supplied.) As stated in OCGA § 44-5-160, title acquired by prescription requires continuance of possession for a period of time fixed by law. Therefore, the plain language of OCGA § 48-4-48 (1989) [7] requires such adverse possession by *411 the tax deed grantee in order for title to ripen under the statute....
...It is uncontroverted that Blizzard never occupied the property, nor committed any acts or exhibited any conduct which would amount to adverse possession of the property for the requisite period. See OCGA § 44-5-161. Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur. NOTES [1] OCGA § 48-4-48 (1989) provides: (a) A title under a tax deed properly executed at a valid and legal sale prior to July 1, 1989, shall ripen by prescription after a period of seven years from the date of execution of that deed....
Copy

Moultrie v. Wright, 464 S.E.2d 194 (Ga. 1995).

Cited 13 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Dec 4, 1995 | 266 Ga. 30

...Ga.Laws 1978, pp. 309-795, section 438 of then new Title 91A contained language virtually identical to former Code Ann. § 92-8315, Ga.Laws 1978, pp. 309, 362, and is the same language that was carried over into the Official Code of Georgia Annotated as § 48-4-48....
...redemption. OCGA § 48-4-40(2). However, the evidence is uncontroverted that the county took no action regarding the property during those six years and that appellant did not redeem the property. Upon the expiration of the seven year period in OCGA § 48-4-48, the county's title was no longer subject *197 to defeasance through redemption....
...rescription and review of Patterson reveals that this court did not fully consider whether prescription had to be shown. I also note that subsequent to the relevant time period in this case, the General Assembly has further amended the statute. OCGA § 48-4-48 now clearly provides for prescription as the only basis for the ripening of title under a tax deed in the absence of notice of foreclosure of the right of redemption....
...It is undisputed that neither the County nor its successors in interest were ever in possession of the property after the sale, since Moultrie remained in possession thereafter. Accordingly, title based on the tax deed would not have ripened by prescription as required by OCGA § 48-4-48(a)....
...239(1), 430 S.E.2d 1 (1993). [2] The record in this case contains a photocopy of a notice of redemption which shows on its face that it was filed for record in the Office of the Clerk of The Superior Court of Chatham County on November 20, 1985. [3] OCGA § 48-4-48 was amended in 1989 by Ga.Laws 1989, p....
Copy

BX CORP. v. Hickory Hill 1185, LLC, 673 S.E.2d 205 (Ga. 2009).

Cited 9 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Feb 9, 2009 | 285 Ga. 5, 2009 Fulton County D. Rep. 421

...547, 548(1), 554 S.E.2d 492 (2001). After expiration of the statutory period for redemption, the right to redeem may be barred either by the giving of notice under OCGA § 48-4-45, which did not occur in this case, or the ripening of title pursuant to OCGA § 48-4-48 (1989). Mark Turner Properties v. Evans, supra at 548(1), 554 S.E.2d 492. OCGA § 48-4-48(a) governs the ripening of title obtained by a tax deed executed prior to July 1, 1989; it states: "A title under a tax deed properly executed at a valid and legal sale prior to July 1, 1989, shall ripen by prescription after a period of seven years from the date of execution of that deed." (Emphasis supplied.) The predecessor to OCGA § 48-4-48, which likewise provided a method for perfecting title to property sold under an execution for taxes......
...This former statutory scheme has been interpreted as providing a situation of repose. Moultrie v. Wright, 266 Ga. 30, 464 S.E.2d 194 (1995); Patterson v. Fla. Realty & Finance Corp., 212 Ga. 440, 443(3), 93 S.E.2d 571 (1956). Thus, although formerly the ripening of title occurred by the mere passage of time, OCGA § 48-4-48 as amended in 1989, mandates that the ripening of title must occur by prescription, i.e., adverse possession by the tax deed grantee....
...Wright , BX argues that because its tax deed was executed on June 5, 1984, the former statutory scheme is applicable and, under such, it became the fee simple owner of the property seven years later on June 5, 1991 without the necessity of its adverse possession. [7] However, the plain language of present OCGA § 48-4-48(a) makes it expressly applicable to tax deeds executed prior to July 1, 1989, and, as noted, it requires adverse possession by the tax deed grantee in order for title to ripen; simply, it "is not a statute of repose which operates to forec...
...xpiration of seven years from the execution of the deed, that being 1982, fee simple title vested absolutely in the tax deed grantee, Chatham County. Thus, the tax deed grantee's right to indefeasible title vested prior to the 1989 amendment to OCGA § 48-4-48....
...This case *208 presents a significantly different situation; the tax deed to BX was executed in 1984, and therefore, the seven-year time frame had not expired prior to the effective date of the amendment. Thus, title to the property had not vested, and BX is subject to the adverse possession requirement contained in OCGA § 48-4-48(a)....
...1404 (1941) is misplaced. That case involved the effect on title rights of purchasers in the situation of land forfeited to the State of Arkansas and sale in turn by the state, in which title had vested. Id. As correctly noted by Hickory Hill, the amendment of OCGA § 48-4-48 changed the process for a tax deed purchaser to obtain fee simple title, not the right to obtain such title....
...[5] BX also asserted a claim for attorney fees and expenses of litigation pursuant to OCGA § 13-6-11. [6] The total redemption payoff was determined to be $3,961.04. [7] BX does not contend that it has ever adversely possessed the property. [8] BX does not challenge the facial validity of OCGA § 48-4-48....
Copy

Machen v. Wolande Mgmt. Grp., Inc., 271 Ga. 163 (Ga. 1999).

Cited 6 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 1, 1999 | 517 S.E.2d 58, 99 Fulton County D. Rep. 2073

...the holders of the first security deed and that they had the right to redeem the property. Wolande filed a counterclaim alleging that Appellants’ right of redemption was barred. After a bench trial in August of 1998, the trial court held that OCGA § 48-4-48 was applicable and that, as a four-year statute of repose, it barred Appellants’ exercise of any right of redemption. Accordingly, the trial court entered judgment in favor of Wolande on both the main claim and the counterclaim. Appellants appeal from that order. 1. OCGA § 48-4-48 (b) provides, in relevant part, that title under the 1994 tax deed “shall ripen by prescription after a period of four years from the execution of that deed.” Under this statute, the purchaser at the tax sale can acquire prescriptive t...
...Wright, 266 Ga. 30, 31 (1) (464 SE2d 194) (1995) (decided under prior law). Appellants do not contend that Wolande and its predecessor were not in possession of the property for the requisite period of time. Compare Blizzard v. Moniz, supra. Thus, OCGA § 48-4-48 (b) precludes Appellants from exercising their alleged right of redemption more than four years after the date of the tax deed to the property. Appellants did file this declaratory judgment action within the four-year period. However, filing suit is not alone sufficient to toll the applicability of OCGA § 48-4-48 (b)....
...as the successor to the tax sale purchaser, acquired absolute and unconditional title to the land, in which case Appellants lost their redemption rights and ceased to have any interest in the property. Forrester v. Lowe, supra at 476 (2). Thus, OCGA § 48-4-48 (b) bars Appellants’ claim, unless they showed a valid timely exercise of their right of redemption. As previously noted, the right to redeem property sold under a tax execution is conditioned upon “the payment of the redemption price or the amount required for redemption ....
...Wolande’s failure to foreclose the right of redemption during the four-year period does not affect the prescriptive title which ripened upon Appellants’ failure to redeem the property during that period. Compare Blizzard v. Moniz, supra. The trial court correctly held that OCGA § 48-4-48 (b) barred Appellants’ exercise of their right of redemption and properly decreed that prescriptive title to the property was vested in Wolande. 2. Appellants’ remaining enumerations of error, including the assertion that they are now the holders of the first security deed, are moot. Regardless of whether Appellants hold the first or second security deed, OCGA § 48-4-48 (b) divested them of their interest in the property under that conveyance. Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.
Copy

Small v. Irving, 291 Ga. 316 (Ga. 2012).

Cited 4 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jul 2, 2012 | 729 S.E.2d 323, 2012 Fulton County D. Rep. 2156

...Small had no interest in the property apart from a tax title, which gave him “an inchoate or defeasible title subject to the right of redemption.” BX Corp. v. Hickory Hill 1185, 285 Ga. 5, 7 (673 SE2d 205) (2009); see also OCGA §§ 48-4-4048-4-48 (redemption of property sold for taxes)....
Copy

Cmty. Renewal & Redemption v. Nix, 704 S.E.2d 759 (Ga. 2011).

Cited 4 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jan 10, 2011 | 288 Ga. 439, 2011 Fulton County D. Rep. 45

...quired for redemption at any time within 12 months of the sale and at any time after the sale until the right to redeem is foreclosed by the new owner pursuant to OCGA § 48-4-45 or by the ripening of the purchaser's title through prescription. OCGA § 48-4-48....
Copy

Nix v. 230 Kirkwood Homes, LLC, 300 Ga. 91 (Ga. 2016).

Cited 3 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Nov 7, 2016 | 793 S.E.2d 402

...y Kelly. DeKalb County ultimately purchased the Property at the tax sale as the highest bidder. It is undisputed that DeKalb County did not foreclose the redemption rights to the Property after the tax sale in accordance with OCGA § 48-4-45 or OCGA § 48-4-48....
...On February 20, 2003, CRR filed suit seeking a declaration that it was the owner of the Property by virtue of having tendered the statutory redemption amount to Nix. *92However, Nix claimed that she had acquired full fee simple title to the Property, under OCGA § 48-4-48, by virtue of the passage of four years since the time of execution of the tax deed. The litigation between CRR and Nix lasted for several years, and the case came before this Court on two occasions....
...We disagree. Because Nix never foreclosed the right of redemption to the Property pursuant to OCGA § 48-4-45, the only way that Nix could have obtained title to the Property was through prescription by adversely possessing the Property for four consecutive years. See OCGA § 48-4-48 (b) (“A title under a tax deed executed on or after July 1, 1989, but before July 1, 1996, shall ripen by prescription after a period of four years from the execution of that deed”); Blizzard v. Moniz, 271 Ga. 50, 54 (518 SE2d 407) (1999) (“[Tjitle acquired by prescription requires continuance of possession for a period of time fixed by law. Therefore, the plain language of OCGA § 48-4-48 ....
...x deed for anyone who wanted to redeem the Property.2 See id. Nix could not claim to any interest in the Property under the tax deed from February 25, 1999 to May 6, 2009, which means that she could not have availed herself of the provisions of OCGA § 48-4-48 to obtain title by prescription under the terms of that statute. See OCGA § 44-5-161 (“In order for possession to be the foundation of prescriptive title, it... [m]ust be in the right of the possessor and not of another”); OCGA § 48-4-48 (title by prescription must ripen “under a tax deed”) (emphasis supplied). Because Nix had no interest in the Property under the tax deed from 1999-2009, she could not properly assert that she could obtain prescriptive title to the subject Property under that tax deed pursuant to OCGA § 48-4-48. Further, even after the tax deed reverted back to Nix on May 6, 2009, the running of the prescription period could not yet begin, as the time period was tolled due to the pending litigation with CRR in Community I and Community II....
Copy

Washington v. Mckibbon Hotel Grp. Inc, 664 S.E.2d 201 (Ga. 2008).

Cited 2 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jul 11, 2008 | 284 Ga. 262, 2008 Fulton County D. Rep. 2387

...Appellant claimed title through his purchase of the property at a tax sale followed by his purported foreclosure of the rights to redeem the property from the sale pursuant to OCGA § 48-4-45 or, alternatively, through the ripening of his tax deed by prescription into fee simple title under OCGA § 48-4-48(b)....
...Even though Appellant failed to give record notice of the allegedly complete foreclosure of redemption, we still must address whether his 1990 tax deed title ripened by prescription into fee simple title four years after the execution of the tax deed. See OCGA § 48-4-48(b-d). In order for a tax deed title to ripen by prescription into fee simple title, the plain language of OCGA § 48-4-48(b) requires adverse possession, as set forth in OCGA § 44-5-161, by the tax deed grantee for a period of four years....
...on it for the ensuing 17 years. [1] *205 1. Appellant Washington claimed title to the property through his completion of a bar of redemption in 1992 and, alternatively, by his tax deed ripening by prescription into fee simple title pursuant to OCGA § 48-4-48(b)....
...the foreclosure of the right of redemption, the title under a tax deed properly executed in 1990 at a valid and legal sale ripens by prescription four years from the date of recordation of the tax deed and vests fee simple title in the grantee. OCGA § 48-4-48(b)-(d)....
...r a period of adverse possession to pass before fee simple title vested in the holder of a tax deed (Ga.L.1978, p. 309, § 2), and parties are again faced with the possibility of having to establish the validity and legality of a tax sale under OCGA § 48-4-48 many years after the fact....

Land USA, LLC v. Georgia Power Co. (Ga. 2015).

Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 1, 2015 | 284 Ga. 262, 2008 Fulton County D. Rep. 2387

...7 Statutes governing tax sales are primarily found in Chapter 4 of Title 48 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, the provisions of which are divided into Articles 1 through 5. Article 3, encompassing OCGA §§ 48-4-40 through 48-4-48, deals with the statutory right of redemption following a tax sale. 8 See OCGA § 48-4-40. 9 Once the statutory redemption period expires, OCGA § 48-4-45 gives the tax sale purchaser, or his heirs, successo...
Copy

Mann v. Blalock, 690 S.E.2d 375 (Ga. 2010).

Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Feb 8, 2010 | 286 Ga. 541, 2010 Fulton County D. Rep. 328

...] [t]hat right exists for at least 12 months (OCGA § 48-4-40(1)), and continues thereafter until the right of redemption is foreclosed by notice pursuant to OCGA § 48-4-45 *378 or by the ripening of the purchaser's title through prescription. OCGA § 48-4-48.")....