Ontario Tax Sale Property Forum
Tax Sale Forum => General => Topic started by: Dave2 on May 13, 2015, 09:04:35 PM
-
An open request to Jeff Obermann of OTS and Jayson Trickey of Tri Target:
I have bid a few tax sales in my time and one of the real pains in the neck is manually filling out the Form 7's. >:(
I do not think that preprinted forms and envelopes are the answer as sure enough in one case where they were used I was the victim of a case where someone collated the envelopes and forms wrong and we almost ended up in a lawsuit.
Having just gone through the painful process of paying all my income and HST taxes one of the nicer developments of recent years by the Canada Revenue agency is the development of fillable forms. Eg. for the T4's
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pbg/tf/t4/t4-fill-14e.pdf
It would be really nice if someone like one of you guys would develop a fillable generic form 7 we could all use for every tax sale and release copyright. ;)
Who knows if you make it easy enough you might even convince me and some others to bid on more tax sales.
I am sure a lot of treasurers and municipal legal staff would also like it so they do not have to decide if a poorly handwritten form 7 is properly filled out.
-
gee that's a great idea..I have won two auctions because bidders made errors .... Lets just add more competition to the mix..what the hell, why not just post our bids in advance along with all title searches so any a**hole can just come and bid without the hassles of actually doing any work or having any knowledge.
Oh what the hell, why don't we just give them neighbourhood sales and pay for the bids for them too.
In case you are confused, OTS and Tri-target are our competition. Before them people didn't have a clue about the gazette etc.
One was bad enough but at least it was mostly membership based . But then they have a "domestic with the owners " and we have 2 sites actually 3 or more with tri-target pulling the spam sites. I hope Jayson doesn't get in a fight with mom..then we will have 5 more sites
Jeff and Linda....do the autoform and I start a website posting title searches and more.....seems fair
-
I am with Pfm on this.
I recall one of Gray County tax sales last winter.
OTS listed this sale as the best buy of the year or something like that.
Anyhow, there were three tenders for a country house for sale.
Two high tenders were rejected due to mistakes in their tenders, resulting the lowest bidder winning the house at the minimum price level.
Watching what was going on at the time, many thoughts came and went by in my mind.
You know life is full of surprises!
And we would like to keep it that way. :D
-
More importantly, than teaching nitwits how to fill out forms.....which by the way are straight-forward.
How about the two of these gentlemen pooling their resources and doing some lobbying. Pretty sure that between the two of them they know the right people to get changes to the legislation that would eliminate post-sale redemptions. 8)
-
It is sad that I only can give you 1 extra karma
Straight forward or not., I am sure that you also have benefited from the errors of nitwits
-
More importantly, than teaching nitwits how to fill out forms.....which by the way are straight-forward.
How about the two of these gentlemen pooling their resources and doing some lobbying. Pretty sure that between the two of them they know the right people to get changes to the legislation that would eliminate post-sale redemptions.
NOTE TO ALL ..I AM NOT A LAWYER AND THIS FREE OPINION IS WORTH EVERY PENNY YOU PAID . DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES TRY THIS AT HOME
Unfortunately it is not lobbying that will do it, It will take a lawsuit slapping the overly confused treasurers. Unless I have missed a newer case , In my opinion the treasurers are incorrectly relying on Cunningham v. Front of Yonge (Township)
Cunningham only learned of the sale 7 days prior and immediately met with the Treasurer. Cunningham truly believed the sale was delayed/cancelled and immediately went to bank and arranged the loan.
"Mr. Cunningham learned that his farm was for sale from a neighbour, who showed him a sales ad in a newspaper on May 26, 2003. He acted immediately, contacting his lawyer the next day and meeting with the lawyer on May 29, 2003. Also on May 29, he attended at the municipal offices and met with the treasurer, Ms. Sherry Reed. He was advised that the township would not accept payment of the arrears in instalments. There is a dispute in the evidence as to what he was told next. Mr. Cunningham says that he was told he would have to pay the full amount of arrears and costs in order to have the tax sale proceedings cancelled, but that he was not given any time limit for doing so. Ms. Reed?s evidence is that she told him the full payment had to be made by June 4, 2003, the day when the tenders were to be opened and made public.
Mr. Cunningham spoke with Chase Financial, a brokerage firm in Kingston, on June 1, and arranged to borrow $20,000 to pay the cancellation price. The necessary documentation was signed the next day, after which it was sent to the solicitors of the brokerage firm for processing. On June 17, counsel for Chase Financial contacted the clerk of the township to advise that the Cunninghams were in funds and wished to pay the arrears, and to inquire as to the exact amount required. But the request came too late.
The application judge resolved this conflict in Mr. Cunningham?s favour, finding that he could reasonably have expected to have the tax sale cancelled by the treasurer if he acted expeditiously, as he did, in obtaining the money to pay the taxes in full.
Mr Cunningham met with the treasurer prior to the sale and made arrangements to pay. The judges clearly believe that Cunningham, a non practitioner, believed that the sale was cancelled/delayed
Cunningham and his lawyers clearly believed the tax sale had been cancelled after the meeting and he did act expeditiously.
Additionally the high bidder did not pay and the second bidder wasn't even awarded the win until 30 days after the opening , 2 weeks after cunningham's
"The Cunninghams applied for relief from forfeiture.
[5] Quigley J. granted the application, cancelled the tax sale, prohibited the township from registering a tax deed in favour of the appellant purchasers, and gave the Cunninghams thirty days to pay the monies owing to the township. He also required the township to register a tax arrears cancellation certificate on title immediately upon receipt of payment.
When the tenders were opened on June 4, Leonard and Casey Roth were declared to be the successful tenderers, for a price of $80,000. They were advised that they had fourteen days to pay the balance of the purchase price owing after being credited with their deposit. Leonard and Casey Roth did not pay the balance owing, however. Instead, on July 3, 2003 ? fourteen days after the Cunninghams? application had been commenced, and thirteen days after a certificate of pending litigation had been registered against the property ? the Mallettes and Cory and Elisabeth Roth, who had been the second highest bidders at $61,055.43, were awarded the successful purchase.
This case is unique in that the cunninghams had struck a deal ( or truly believed they had) with the treasurer prior to the sale however the treasurer proceeded with the sale. Additionally the failure of high tenderer to make payment and the failure of the treasurer to strictly adhere to the act re forfeiture of deposit and declaring second winner at 14 days AFTER A COURT ORDER VOIDED THE SALE
This was not just one simple redemption after the sale.
My position is that , without extenuating circumstances and multiple errors such as Cunningham , The discretion of the treasurer accorded in 12(6) is not automatic. My position is that the treasurer is bound by the following and unless there is clear evidence of error or omission cannot exercise discretion and just cancel a sale. Doubly so once paid in full
"If the higher tenderer makes the payment as set out in subsection (1), the treasurer SHALL
declare the tenderer to be the successful purchaser. O. Reg. 181/03, s. 11 (2).
"As soon as possible after a successful purchaser is declared in a sale under the Act, the
treasurer SHALL prepare and register the necessary documents in accordance with the Act.
O. Reg. 181/03, s. 23."
SHALL is a very powerful word in legislation, It does not mean ." if you feel like it"
Duty of treasurer
(3) If, before the registration of a tax deed or notice of vesting, the treasurer becomes
aware of a failure, error or omission referred to in subsection (2), the treasurer shall immediately
register a tax arrears cancellation certificate but this subsection does not apply so as to prevent
the treasurer from registering a new tax arrears certificate and proceeding under this Part. 2001, c. 25, s. 382 (3). Actual prejudice
(4) Proceedings for the sale of land under this Part are not voidable unless the person
complaining of any neglect, error or omission establishes that he or she suffered actual
prejudice as a result of the neglect, error or omission. 2001, c. 25, s. 382 (
4).Proceeding not voidable
(5) No proceedings under this Part are rendered voidable by reason of,
(a) a failure on the part of the treasurer to distrain for any reason or take any other action
for the collection of taxes;
(b) an error in the cancellation price other than a substantial error;
(c) any error in the notices sent or delivered under this Part if the error has not
substantially misled the person complaining of the error;
(d) any error in the publishing or posting of advertisements if the error has not
substantially misled the person complaining of the error; or
(e) any error in the description of the land in the tax arrears certificate if the error has not
substantially misled the person complaining of the error. 2001, c. 25, s. 382 (5). Treasurer may halt proceedings
(6) The treasurer may register a cancellation certificate if, in his or her opinion,
(a) it is not in the financial interests of the municipality to continue with proceedings
under this Part; or
(b) because of some neglect, error or omission, it is not practical or desirable to continue
proceedings under this Part. 2001, c. 25, s. 382 (6). Effect
(7) Subsection (6) does not apply so as to prevent the treasurer from registering a new
tax arrears certificate and proceeding under this Part. 2001, c. 25, s. 382 (7). Effect of registration
383. (1) Subject to proof of fraud, every tax deed and notice of vesting, when registered,
is final, binding and conclusive and not subject to challenge for any reason including,
(a) the invalidity of any assessment upon which the tax arrears were based; and
(b) the breach of any requirements, including notice requirements, imposed by this or
any other Act or otherwise by law. 2001, c. 25, s. 383 (1).
Under the rules the owner cannot just walk in after and pay after a sale unless they can PROVE they are victims of massive errors essentially and the onus is on them to prove it.
I do not accept the post sale redemption is automatic and have had to take that position.
My position is that once paid in full , the town MUST register deed in 48 hours at the latest and unless certain conditions ( a very tight list of conditions) are met, there is no legal position for the treasurer to void the sale. Even after the opening I do not believe discretion exists without overwhelming evidence of error or ommision
I have had to"discuss" this rather in depth with a town lawyer a few years ago when someone attempted a redemption. Town did side with my position and complete the sale.
I would like to see cases like cunningham where the treasurers discretion is defined. If anyone has one please post it .
Luckily I have not had to test my position in court , Even if you win you only see 20 cents on the dollar of costs at best.
Should you have a redemption attempt, it is up to you to decide your legal position . Consider cost/ benefit and seek legal advice if you feel there is financial benefit to the fight.
Always remember courts will generally side with property owner as tax sale buyers are vultures (Although we pay the judges wages as we actually pay the tax) Is the owner a failed corporation or a 90 year old widow ? Judges don't decide using laws, they decide a case based on who they like better.
Always remember a lawyer will tell you you have a case..which becomes "incredibly more complicated" after the retainer is paid. Whatever time and cost the lawyer quotes, quadruple it when deciding on cost benefit.
Also town will side with the party most likely to sue them as to avoid the lawsuit. Which in most cases is the owner who actually lost something versus the buyer who only lost potential profit. Of course of the owner cant pay taxes, doubt they can afford a lawyer.
What is ultra important in any discussion is PAY IN FULL as soon as humanly possible as this now places the onus on the treasurer. I can see possible defence prior to payment , but once paid in full I think the deal is done.
My long BS babbling... And your opinion is???
FREE ADVICE WORTH EVERY PENNY YOU PAID
-
Not quite as straight forward as PFM paints it, I had one a few years ago, paid in full, and the old owner came in day before my deed would have been issued to me and paid....which is what the judge said in Cunningham was possible. Town accepted payment and I was refunded....sure I could have wasted a lot of money trying my hand at court, but I truly believe that a simple change in the legislation would clarify the issue once and for all....problem is the legislature has no appetite for doing any favours for a bunch of vultures. 8)