Can I ignore this lawsuit? In Rem Only
NOS...@joinme.com
plaintiffs are taxing authorities suing for payment of past ad valorem
property taxes. I never owned this property. My only connection with
the property is that I once owned a note secured by a Deed of Trust on
this property. My note has been paid, the Deed of Trust has been
released or assigned, and I have no economic or other interest in the
property.
Can I safely ignore this lawsuit? What is the meaning of "In Rem
Only?"
nos...@isp.com
>I have been sued IN REM ONLY along with many other defendants.
Is this (i) your characterization of the lawsuit not based on our
doing what is needed to satisfy the second part of this question or
(ii) what you have confirmed from explicit language in the summons and
complaint including by you having verified from reading therein that
plaintiff is not seeking any monetary or other relief from you other
than terminating/foreclosing whatever (if any) ownership rights or
rights that derive from some previous owner you may still have in or
relating to the subject propery?
> The plaintiffs are taxing authorities suing for payment of past
> ad valorem property taxes. I never owned this property. My only
> connection with the property is that I once owned a note secured
> by a Deed of Trust on this property. My note has been paid, the
> Deed of Trust has been released or assigned, and I have no economic
> or other interest in the property.
>
> What is the meaning of "In Rem Only?"
As you imply you guess already, that the plaintiff proceeds only
against "the thing" itself, i.e., in the sort of proceeding to which
you refer, seeks only to obtain clear title to the identified property
by way of a court granting it a judgment that forecloses on and so
extinguishes the interests of all persons who appear as of record or
who otherwise have notice of the suit (assuming it was served
including if by publication as provided by law) who earlier claimed or
seemed to claim and also who (but for such a judgment) later might
claim some sort of ownership or related interest in that property
and/but not any other monetary or other additional relief as against
the named (even if "John Doe" or "Jane Doe" anonymously sued)
individual defendants.
> Can I safely ignore this lawsuit?
Yes, if you comply with "ii" above.
Mike Jacobs
> I have been sued IN REM ONLY along with many other defendants. The
> plaintiffs are taxing authorities suing for payment of past ad valorem
> property taxes. I never owned this property. My only connection with
> the property is that I once owned a note secured by a Deed of Trust on
> this property. My note has been paid, the Deed of Trust has been
> released or assigned, and I have no economic or other interest in the
> property.
Maybe your jurisdiction uses the words "in rem" differently than what
I am familiar with. An "in rem" action (in MD) is one where the suit
is against an object or a piece of property - a "thing" ("rem" in
Latin) - and the Court obtains jurisdiction over that thing by posting
a notice, or by publication, directed to all and any persons who may
claim any legally cognizable interest in that "rem". The suit
caption is typically something like "US vs. 40 kilograms of
cocaine" (in a civil forfeiture case) or "Sam Seaman vs. the SS
Unseaworthy" (in admiralty claims brought against a vessel).
If you have been sued in your OWN name, not in the name of the
property you allegedly may have some interest in, that is not,
strictly speaking, "in rem" jurisdiction. Your suit caption may read
something like "Joe Dirt vs. Carol Compost, Harry Humus, Sally Soil,
and All Other Persons Claiming an Interest in 40 Acres of Land, More
or Less, at 123 Main Street, Cowville" (in a suit to quiet title) or
"Greedy Bank vs. Marvin Motorist and All Other Persons Claiming an
Interest in One 2008 Bugatti Veyron" (in a suit to repossess an
auto). Such suits are more properly called "quasi in rem" because
even though the defendant named is a person, the manner of obtaining
service over him is the same as for a true "in rem" suit - by
placarding or posting the property in issue, or by publication. If
you are named personally in the suit AND have been served personally -
if someone handed you the suit papers, or they got sent to you by
certified mail which you had to sign for - you may have been served
"in personam" (personally). And where, as in your case, the Plaintiff
is the State or local taxing authority, all bets are off as to what
they can or can't do to collect taxes, even against someone who no
longer has any interest in the property. Better to be safe than
sorry.
> Can I safely ignore this lawsuit? What is the meaning of "In Rem
> Only?"
I can't tell enough from your brief post to comment directly on
whether it is safe for you to ignore this suit, and would not hazard
to do so anyway, since this is a public forum for discussion only. IF
it is truly an "In Rem Only" suit, you have no exposure to any
liability beyond whatever interest you may currently have in the
subject property; IF none, you may be able to safely ignore the suit.
But, that is a big IF, and we don't really know the answer to whether
it is a "true" in rem action or a "quasi in rem", do we? Because we
don't actually have the words of the suit quoted to us to review, and
don't even know what state this suit was filed in, no one can give you
any more precise suggestions, and you are not much better off than
before you asked, except you now have some general idea of what these
legal terms may mean.
So, even if you think you have little or no interest in the subject
matter of the suit, and do not want the bother and expense of
participating or of hiring a lawyer, you would probably be better off
contacting the plaintiff's attorney (the one who filed the suit) and
explaining to him that you do not claim any ongoing interest in the
property, and asking him what you need to do to get out of the case.
He would probably be happy to draft up an affidavit for you to review
and sign where you state basically what you told us here on MLM, and
on the strength of that affidavit he most likely will be happy to drop
you from the suit, even before you have to file an Answer to the
Complaint or a Motion to Dismiss on your own behalf. It serves his
client no purpose to have unnecessary defendants hanging on who have
no claim to the property; all it would do is make more work for him,
for no additional money, something which most sensible lawyers (like
any other worker) would prefer to avoid. It goes without saying, read
anything you are asked to sign, and make sure you understand and agree
with what it says before you sign. If not sure, ask.
If that doesn't work, you still might try filing a written Answer in
which you specifically admit those allegations of the Complaint that
you agree are true, deny those that you consider false (such as, the
assertion that you still have any interest in the subject property)
and asking, at the end of your Answer (before your signature, address
and phone) for relief in the form of a closing sentence like this:
WHEREFORE, Defendant Nospam Joinme prays that, having considered the
foregoing, the Court dismiss this Defendant from the suit.
Good luck,
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300