Any person or persons claiming title to real estate, which title is based upon or
has come through a deed of a tax collector or town or city treasurer upon sale of
real estate for the collection of taxes, assessments, or municipal liens of any kind,
or of a sheriff on execution sale, or any deed, grant, or conveyance given under judicial
proceedings, or otherwise, the validity of which depends upon notice of any kind,
may, although his or her title to the real estate is undisputed, bring a civil action
against the person or persons whose title and interest, or either, were sold out under
the sale or proceedings, and against any other persons that may be interested in the
real estate because of the sale or proceedings, or the giving of such a deed to determine
the validity of the title or estate of the person or persons therein, to remove any
cloud thereon, and to affirm and quiet the possession and title of the person or persons;
provided, however, that where a period of redemption is by statute provided, in which
the real estate passing under any sale or proceedings described in this section may
be redeemed, the period of redemption must have expired before the bringing of any
action under this section.
Notes of Decisions
Sleboda v. Heirs at Law of Harris, 508 A.2d 652 (R.I. 1986).
· cites it 10× “Section 44-9-25 provides for foreclosure of the right of redemption by a tax-sale purchaser at any time after one year from the date of the sale for nonpayment of taxes. This section gives a speedy method of confirming full title in the taxsale purchaser and extinguishing the…”
Costa v. Silva, 996 A.2d 607 (R.I. 2010).
· cites it 3× “[1956] § 34-16-1 et seq. regarding notice and procedure have been satisfied; nor have the rightful owners of Meadow Lot been advised of the Defendant’s claim to the land.”
Gammons v. Caswell, 447 A.2d 361 (R.I. 1982).
“The ground for the motion made pursuant to Rule 12(e) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure 2 was that the Gammons failed to comply with the provisions contained in § 34-16-1 through § 34-16-15. The first and second defenses also challenge whether the Gammons complied…”
Samuel Nardone & Co. v. Bianchi, 524 A.2d 1114 (R.I. 1987).
“1956 (1969 Reenactment) § 34-16-1 against more than 300 defendants, all of whom were alleged to be property owners in the Shelter Harbor area.”
Mellor v. Conklin Limestone Co., 205 A.2d 831 (R.I. 1964).
“They were heard together by a justice of the superior court, who- thereafter in each case entered a decree denying and dismissing the bill of complaint, from which each complainant has prosecuted an appeal to this court.”
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.