Miguel v. Palmetto Asset Investments, LLC

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE
CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Francisco Nicolas Miguel, Respondent,

v.

Palmetto Asset Investments, LLC, Gabriel Angel
Prestegui Gomez, and A. Kevin Hunter, II, Greenville
County Tax Collector, Defendants,

of which Palmetto Asset Investments, LLC is the
Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2020-000390

Appeal From Greenville County
Charles B. Simmons, Jr., Master-in-Equity

Unpublished Opinion No. 2022-UP-231
Submitted May 1, 2022 – Filed June 1, 2022

AFFIRMED

Jeffrey T. Spell, of Charleston, for Appellant.

Max Thomas Hyde, Jr., of Hyde Law Firm, P.A., of
Spartanburg, and Ryan Edward Gaylord, of Spartanburg,
both for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Palmetto Asset Investments, LLC (Appellant) appeals the
master-in-equity's order granting summary judgment to taxpayer Francisco Nicolas
Miguel (Respondent) and voiding a tax sale and deed. On appeal, Appellant
argues the master erred in finding notice was not given to Respondent at his best
address as required by statute. We affirm.

We hold the master did not err in granting summary judgment to Respondent and
voiding the tax sale and deed. See Gadson v. Hembree, 364 S.C. 316, 320, 613
S.E.2d 533, 535 (2005) ("Summary judgment is appropriate when it is clear that
there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law."); Reeping v. JEBBCO, LLC, 402 S.C. 195, 199, 740
S.E.2d 504, 506 (Ct. App. 2013) ("[A]ll requirements of the law leading up to tax
sales which are intended for the protection of the taxpayer against surprise or the
sacrifice of his property are to be regarded [as] mandatory and are to be strictly
enforced." (alterations in original) (quoting Donohue v. Ward, 298 S.C. 75, 83, 378
S.E.2d 261, 265 (Ct. App.1989))); Rives v. Bulsa, 325 S.C. 287, 293, 478 S.E.2d
878, 881 (Ct. App. 1996) ("Failure to give the required notice is a fundamental
defect in the tax proceedings which renders the proceedings absolutely void.");
Reeping, 402 S.C. at 199-200, 740 S.E.2d at 506 (holding the tax collector "must
exercise diligence to ascertain the correct address of the property owner" (quoting
Benton v. Logan, 323 S.C. 338, 341, 474 S.E.2d 446, 447 (Ct. App. 1996))); S.C.
Code Ann. § 12-51-40(a) (2014) (requiring the tax collector to mail a notice of
delinquent property taxes to the taxpayer at the best address available); id. (stating
the "best address available" means "either the address shown on the deed
conveying the property to [the taxpayer], the property address, or other corrected
or forwarding address of which the [tax collector] has actual knowledge"); S.C.
Code Ann. § 12-51-40(b) (2014) (authorizing the tax collector to take exclusive
possession of the property by mailing a notice to the taxpayer "at the address
shown on the tax receipt or to an address of which the officer has actual
knowledge, by 'certified mail, return receipt requested-restricted delivery'"); S.C.
Code Ann. § 12-51-120 (2014) (requiring the tax collector to send the taxpayer a
notice of the approaching end of the redemption period by "certified mail, return
receipt requested-restricted delivery" to the best address available). Here, the tax
collector failed to use diligence in ascertaining Respondent's correct address.
Therefore, the tax sale to Appellant was void because the tax collector failed to
comply with the statutory requirement that notice of the delinquent taxes be mailed
to the best available address.
AFFIRMED.1

GEATHERS and HILL, JJ., and LOCKEMY, A.J., concur.

1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.