Hull v. D’Arcy (2009)
Citation: 2009 WY 30, 202 P.3d 417 (Docket No. S-08-0058) · Court: Supreme Court of Wyoming · Decided: March 5, 2009
A wyoming companion to thompson-green-v-drobish-2006: where genuine issues of material fact exist about whether the former owner actually received the statutorily required pre-deed notice, summary judgment validating the tax deed is improper. Defective notice inhibits the owner’s right-of-redemption.
Facts
The Hulls did not pay 1999 property taxes on their Platte County property. On July 24, 2000, the Platte County Treasurer conducted a tax sale; Jack Dalton paid the delinquent taxes and received a certificate of purchase. In January 2006, Dalton applied for and received a tax deed, later conveying to Michael and Debra D’Arcy. Rose M. Hull, a former owner, sued to invalidate the tax deed, asserting she had not received the statutorily required notice of the sale or of the pending expiration of the redemption period before the deed issued. She averred she was living in Wheatland when notice was directed to Mr. Hull and published in the newspaper, and that a letter Dalton sent to a Hartville post-office box did not reach her. The district court granted summary judgment to Dalton and the D’Arcys, upholding the tax deed; Hull appealed.
Holding
Reversed and remanded. The Wyoming Supreme Court held that genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether Rose Hull received the pre-deed notice required by Wyoming’s tax-sale statutes (the Wyo. Stat. § 39-13-108 notice regime). Those factual disputes about adequate notice to her precluded summary judgment validating the tax deed.
Reasoning
- Notice is a prerequisite to a valid tax deed. Consistent with thompson-green-v-drobish-2006, strict statutory notice must be given before a tax deed may issue; a disputed failure of notice goes to the deed’s validity.
- Summary-judgment standard. Because the evidence raised a triable dispute over whether Ms. Hull, as an owner, actually received (or was reasonably served with) the required notice — versus notice merely directed to Mr. Hull or published — the court could not validate the deed as a matter of law.
- Notice and redemption are linked. A defect in pre-deed notice deprives the owner of the opportunity to exercise the right-of-redemption before the deed cuts off that right.
Practical impact
- For investors/operators: A wyoming tax-deed purchaser must be able to prove, on undisputed facts, that each owner received the required pre-deed notice; notice to one spouse or publication alone may not suffice, and a factual gap defeats summary judgment quieting title.
- For former owners: Affidavit evidence that the required notice was never received can reopen the validity of a tax deed and the chance to redeem.
Good-law status
Still good law as of last_verified 2026-06-02. A published Wyoming Supreme
Court decision; consistent with and cited alongside thompson-green-v-drobish-2006;
not overruled.
Why it matters
Hull operationalizes the Wyoming notice rule at the summary-judgment stage: a contested fact about whether an owner actually received pre-deed notice keeps the tax deed’s validity open for trial, a recurring obstacle to quieting Wyoming tax titles.
Related authorities
- thompson-green-v-drobish-2006 — strict § 39-13-108(e) notice; one owner’s defect voids the deed as to all.
- mullane-v-central-hanover · mennonite-v-adams — due-process notice baselines.
Applies in →
wyoming (binding state authority). Concept cross-links: right-of-redemption, due-process-notice.
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.