Pulaski Choice, L.L.C. v. 2735 Villa Creek, L.P. (Ark. 2010)
Citation: 2010 Ark. 91; 362 S.W.3d 882 · Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas · Decided: February 25, 2010
The leading modern Arkansas authority on strict compliance with the publication-notice requirements that precede the State’s sale of tax-delinquent land. Answering certified questions from the Court of Appeals, the Arkansas Supreme Court held that strict compliance with Ark. Code § 26-37-201 is required, that substantial compliance is not sufficient, and that a published notice with an incorrect parcel number rendered the tax sale void.
Facts
2735 Villa Creek, L.P., a Texas limited partnership, failed to pay 2001 and 2002 taxes on Pulaski County land. In April 2004 the land was certified to the Arkansas Commissioner of State Lands as tax-delinquent. The Commissioner published notice of the public sale in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette on April 26, 2006. The notice listed the parcel number as “43N-007:02-018.00” — but the correct parcel number was 43N-007:00-018.00. Pulaski Choice acquired through the sale; Villa Creek challenged the validity of the sale.
Holding
Strict compliance with the publication requirements of § 26-37-201 is required; substantial compliance is not sufficient. Because the published notice contained an incorrect parcel number, it failed § 26-37-201(b)(3)(A), and the tax sale was void.
Reasoning
- Certified questions. The Court of Appeals certified questions on (1) whether the publication must include the parcel number, (2) whether substantial compliance suffices, and (3) whether § 26-37-201 is internally inconsistent.
- Strict compliance is the rule. The Court held that strict compliance governs the statutory publication requirements; the protections exist to ensure delinquent owners receive constitutionally and statutorily adequate notice before losing their land.
- The parcel-number defect was fatal. The notice “did not contain the correct parcel number, and thus, the publication failed to meet the mandatory requirements of a valid notice under section 26-37-201(b)(3).” The Court concluded the failure rendered the tax sale void.
Practical impact
- For investors / operators: An Arkansas tax title traceable to a published notice with a wrong parcel number (or other publication defect) is exposed to a void-sale challenge — substantial compliance will not save it. Confirm the published notice precisely matches the parcel before relying on a Commissioner’s deed; this is a primary quiet-title-after-tax-sale risk in Arkansas.
- For former owners: A defective publication (e.g., incorrect parcel number) can void the tax sale of your land, regardless of how “close” the notice was, subject to applicable limitations.
- Sits alongside jones-v-flowers (the Arkansas-origin U.S. Supreme Court case) in defining Arkansas tax-sale notice rigor.
Good-law status
Still good law. A frequently cited Arkansas Supreme Court authority on strict
compliance with § 26-37-201 publication notice; not overruled as of
last_verified 2026-06-02. (Section 26-37-201 has been amended over time; verify
current subsection lettering on the arkansas page.)
Why it matters
It is the controlling Arkansas statement that tax-sale publication notice demands strict, not substantial, compliance — a single wrong digit in a parcel number can void the sale, making it the headline due-diligence case for Arkansas tax titles.
Related authorities
- jones-v-flowers — additional notice steps required when certified mail is returned (Arkansas-origin U.S. Supreme Court case).
- mullane-v-central-hanover — notice “reasonably calculated” to reach the party.
- tyler-v-hennepin-county — surplus/takings backdrop.
Applies in →
arkansas — informs sale-procedure, void-sale, and due-process-notice analysis.
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.