Ejectment Questions - Timing

4 Replies

I'm trying to get a handle on what ejectment will and will not do for me.

As I understand it, a successful ejectment simply gets me possession, at which time the short statute clock starts.  It is also my understanding that if the taxpayer seeks to redeem concurrent to the ejectment (but files after I file for ejectment), he will likely have to pay my court/legal fees.

However, as the taxpayer can go to court for redemption over the three year life of the short statute, what prevents him from simply not showing up to court for the ejectment and then filing for redemption, say, a month later?  I will have gone through ejectment, paid a lawyer (without reimbursement from the taxpayer) and then, a month later, have to go to court and pay a lawyer all over again, again without reimbursement.  Am I missing something?

@Arnold Finkelstein , if he files for a later redemption lawsuit, you can answer and ask that your earlier legal fees be added to the price tag.  If your ejectment lawsuit is filed after you get your tax deed, you might have a really good argument that his redemption claim was a compulsory counterclaim in your ejectment lawsuit, and he is now barred from suing for judicial redemption. Just a thought. It hasn't been addressed in the appellate decisions.

@Denise Evans  So, if an investor filed an ejectment, the taxpayer would be responsible for an investor's contemporaneous and/or prior legal/court costs in any subsequent attempts to redeem?

The "compulsory counterclaim" idea is an interesting one in that I wouldn't think the the court could be convinced that a taxpayer's attempt to redeem isn't genuine.  If a taxpayer is going to pay a lawyer and show up, that alone seems enough to convince anyone that they really want their property back.

That's not really the point with compulsory counterclaims, @Arnold Finkelstein . It is that the taxpayer had his chance to judicially redeem when you filed ejectment, and did not take it.  It's not a matter of genuine or not. It's a rule of litigation that could burn the unwary.  Just like a statute of limitations is a rule that could nab somebody, no matter how genuine their desire or how good their excuse for waiting so long to do something.