USA Foreclosure Wiki

Tallage Lincoln, LLC v. Williams

4 min read

Tallage Lincoln, LLC v. Williams (2020)

Citation: 485 Mass. 449; 151 N.E.3d 344 (2020) · Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC-12847) · Decided: 2020

A controlling massachusetts decision on what a private assignee of a municipal tax title may charge a property owner to redeem under the Chapter 60 tax-title scheme. It limits the redemption amount an assignee may demand and is a core reference for anyone evaluating a Massachusetts tax-title investment or a redemption dispute.

Facts

For fiscal year 2011 the owners failed to pay a real estate tax bill of roughly $2,775. In November 2011 the city’s tax collector, acting under G.L. c. 60, §§ 53–54, took tax title to the home, opening a tax-title account for the delinquent balance (unpaid tax plus statutory interest and the fees and charges of the taking). The owners did not pay taxes in 2012 through 2015, and each year’s taxes were added to the city’s tax-title account.

In May 2016 Tallage Lincoln, LLC — a for-profit entity in the business of acquiring municipal tax titles — was the successful bidder at the city’s tax-title auction, and the city assigned its tax title to Tallage. Tallage then paid the real estate taxes on the property in 2016, 2017, and 2018, and sought to include those subsequent payments (plus statutory interest and its legal fees) in the amount the owners had to pay to redeem.

Holding

The SJC held that the statutory scheme in G.L. c. 60, § 52 does not permit an assignee of a tax-title account to include its own subsequent real estate tax payments in the amount required for redemption. The redemption figure is fixed by the statute and does not absorb the assignee’s later tax payments.

Instead, the holder of the tax title may record certificates of tax payment under G.L. c. 60, § 60, which operate as a separate statutory lien against the property — distinct from the tax title and from the redemption of that tax title. That § 60 lien, not an inflated redemption amount, is the mechanism through which the assignee recovers its subsequent payments.

Reasoning

  • The redemption amount under c. 60 is a creature of statute; the Court read § 52 as defining a fixed redemption sum and declined to expand it by implication to cover an assignee’s post-assignment tax payments.
  • The Legislature provided a distinct remedy — the § 60 certificate-of-payment lien — for a tax-title holder who pays subsequent taxes. Because that separate path exists, the Court would not fold those payments into the redemption figure.
  • The decision reflects Massachusetts’s general construction of redemption statutes in a manner protective of the owner’s right to redeem, holding a sophisticated assignee to the statutory text rather than letting it accumulate charges that a municipality itself would not.

Practical impact

  • For investors / operators: A Massachusetts tax-title assignee cannot pad the redemption demand with its own later tax payments. To recover subsequent taxes paid, record § 60 certificates promptly; that lien — not the redemption amount — is the recovery vehicle, and it carries its own enforcement and priority profile. Mispricing a redemption demand can expose the assignee to litigation and to having the demand rejected.
  • For former owners: When a private company holds your tax title, the amount to redeem is set by statute; the assignee’s separately paid taxes are not automatically part of what you owe to redeem. Demand an itemization and check it against c. 60 § 52.

Good-law status

Still good law as of last_verified 2026-06-02. A 2020 SJC decision; not overruled or superseded by later authority located in retrieval.

Source

Why it matters

Tallage draws the line between the redemption amount (capped by statute) and the § 60 lien an assignee uses to recover later tax payments. It is the first reference for pricing or contesting a Massachusetts tax-title redemption.

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.

Graph View

Backlinks