Blizzard v. Moniz (1999)
Citation: 271 Ga. 50; 518 S.E.2d 407 · Court: Supreme Court of Georgia (opinion by Justice Hines) · Decided: May 3, 1999
A leading Georgia high-court decision on extinguishment of the right of redemption after a tax sale. The Court held that, for tax deeds executed on or after July 1, 1989, title does not ripen — and the right of redemption is not automatically barred — by the mere passage of time under OCGA § 48-4-48. The statute requires actual adverse possession by the tax deed grantee for the prescriptive period before title ripens. A purchaser who never possessed the property cannot rely on “ripening by prescription” to defeat redemption; the owner (or a successor in interest) may still redeem.
Facts
Blizzard purchased property at a Georgia tax sale and recorded a tax deed but never occupied the property and never took any action amounting to adverse possession. He did not complete the statutory barment process (the formal notice foreclosing the right of redemption under OCGA § 48-4-45). Appellees Moniz and Hammock, successors in interest to the original owner, sought to redeem and brought an action to remove the tax deed as a cloud on title. Blizzard contended his title had “ripened by prescription” under OCGA § 48-4-48 by the passage of time, extinguishing the right of redemption.
The superior court ruled for Moniz and Hammock, ordering that they could redeem by paying $9,252.21 to Blizzard in exchange for Blizzard’s execution and delivery of a quitclaim deed. Blizzard appealed.
Holding
The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed. Under OCGA § 48-4-48, title under a post-July-1-1989 tax deed “shall ripen by prescription after a period of four years from the date of execution,” and:
“the plain language of OCGA § 48-4-48 (1989) requires such adverse possession by the tax deed grantee in order for title to ripen under the statute.”
Because:
“It is uncontroverted that Blizzard never occupied the property, nor committed any acts or exhibited any conduct which would amount to adverse possession of the property for the requisite period,”
Blizzard’s tax-deed title never ripened, the right of redemption was never barred by prescription, and Moniz and Hammock were entitled to redeem.
Reasoning
-
“Ripening by prescription” means prescription, not lapse of time. Title acquired by prescription requires continuance of possession for the period fixed by law. The 1989 amendment to OCGA § 48-4-48 tied ripening to “prescription,” which incorporates Georgia’s adverse-possession requirements; the tax deed grantee must actually possess the land adversely for the statutory period.
-
Mere recording and payment of taxes are not enough. Holding a recorded tax deed and paying taxes, without entry and possession, does not satisfy the adverse-possession element and therefore does not ripen title or extinguish redemption.
-
Two independent paths to bar redemption. A Georgia tax purchaser extinguishes the right of redemption either by (a) completing the statutory barment notice under OCGA § 48-4-45 et seq., or (b) ripening by prescription through four years of actual adverse possession under OCGA § 48-4-48. Blizzard did neither, so redemption survived.
-
Policy favoring redemption. The decision reflects the established policy that the right of redemption is construed in favor of the owner, and that a tax purchaser cannot quietly perfect absolute title merely by waiting.
Practical impact
What this means for an owner / investor / surplus-recovery agent:
-
Georgia investors must possess or barre. A recorded Georgia tax deed alone does not yield marketable, redemption-free title. To cut off redemption, the purchaser must either serve the barment notice (OCGA § 48-4-45) or hold four years of actual adverse possession (OCGA § 48-4-48). Buying and waiting, with no possession and no barment, leaves title subject to redemption indefinitely — a core diligence point on the georgia page and in quiet-title-after-tax-sale planning.
-
For former owners / successors: if the tax purchaser never took possession and never completed barment, the right-of-redemption generally remains exercisable even years after the sale. Redemption is accomplished by paying the redemption amount in exchange for a quitclaim deed.
-
Title and quiet-title consequences. Because unbarred, unpossessed tax deeds do not ripen, title examiners treat them as clouds rather than fee titles; a quiet-title or redemption action is the usual cure. This bears directly on title insurability and resale timing for tax-deed investors.
-
Interaction with surplus rules. This decision governs who keeps the land (redemption/title), distinct from who keeps surplus value after a completed sale under tyler-v-hennepin-county; both must be checked in Georgia tax-deed matters.
Good-law status
Still good law. Decided May 3, 1999; unanimous (Justice Hines). Repeatedly cited and followed in later Georgia tax-deed cases for the rule that OCGA § 48-4-48 ripening requires actual adverse possession. Not overruled or superseded as of last_verified 2026-06-02. (Confirm the current statutory text of OCGA § 48-4-48 for any post-decision amendments — needs_verification.)
Related authorities
- tyler-v-hennepin-county — constitutional limit on retaining surplus equity after tax foreclosure.
- baltimore-v-thornton-mellon-2022 — Maryland high court: certificate/redemption extinguished only when fee simple passes by deed, not by judgment alone.
- simon-v-cronecker-2007 — New Jersey high court on third-party redemption and assignment after a foreclosure complaint.
- jones-v-flowers · mennonite-v-adams — notice owed before redemption rights may be cut off.
Applies in →
georgia (binding). Persuasive elsewhere only as an illustration that “ripening by prescription” requires actual possession — needs_verification per jurisdiction.
Legal information, not legal advice. This page summarizes a court decision for educational purposes and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Verify against the primary opinion and consult a licensed attorney in the relevant jurisdiction before acting. Last verified 2026-06-02.