USA Foreclosure Wiki

Westconnaug Recovery Co. v. U.S. Bank National Ass'n (2023)

4 min read

Westconnaug Recovery Co. v. U.S. Bank National Ass’n (2023)

Citation: 290 A.3d 364 (R.I. 2023); Nos. 2020-245-Appeal, 2021-83-Appeal · Court: Supreme Court of Rhode Island · Decided: March 17, 2023

A recent rhode-island tax-title decision strictly construing the statutory offer to redeem in a foreclosure-of-redemption petition. The Court held that an interested party who fails to make a § 44-9-29 offer to redeem on or before the return day loses the right to redeem, and that the Superior Court’s general discretion to allow amended answers does not override that “clear and unforgiving” statutory requirement.

Facts

Westconnaug Recovery Company, LLC (WRC) acquired property in a 2018 tax sale conducted by the City of Providence. After the statutory redemption period expired, WRC filed a Superior Court petition to foreclose all rights of redemption under R.I. Gen. Laws ch. 44-9. U.S. Bank, an interested party, filed a timely answer challenging the validity of the tax title on the ground that the City had not provided proper notice of the tax sale — but its answer did not set forth a statutory offer to redeem as required by § 44-9-29. The Superior Court ultimately allowed the bank to redeem (and held WRC in contempt). WRC appealed both the redemption judgment and the contempt order.

Holding

Having failed to set forth in its answer an offer to redeem before the fixed return day, U.S. Bank’s right to redeem was barred.

The Supreme Court vacated both the final judgment granting redemption and the contempt order. Under § 44-9-29, an interested party must, “on or before the return day,” file an answer setting forth its interest and an offer to redeem upon the terms as may be fixed by the court; that requirement is mandatory, and merely contesting the validity of the tax title under § 44-9-31 does not preserve the right to redeem.

Reasoning

  • The statute is “clear and unforgiving.” Section 44-9-29 ties the right to redeem to a timely, affirmative offer in the answer filed before the return day. The Court treated that language as mandatory rather than directory.

  • Discretion to amend cannot rewrite the statute. Although Superior Court hearing justices have broad discretion to permit amended answers in tax-title petitions, that discretion does not extend to excusing the absence of a statutorily required offer to redeem; “the clear statutory language of § 44-9-29 trumps” that discretion here.

  • Challenging title is not the same as offering to redeem. Contesting the tax-title’s validity (§ 44-9-31) and offering to redeem (§ 44-9-29) are distinct acts; doing the former does not preserve the latter.

  • Dissent. Justice Robinson dissented, arguing the offer requirement is directory rather than mandatory and that equity disfavors forfeitures where a party shows readiness to redeem.

Practical impact

  • For former owners / lienholders: In a Rhode Island foreclosure-of-redemption proceeding, an interested party must affirmatively plead an offer to redeem in its answer before the return day — silence, or merely attacking the tax title, forfeits the right-of-redemption. Procedural precision is decisive.
  • For investors / operators: A tax-title holder petitioning to foreclose redemption can rely on strict enforcement of the § 44-9-29 offer requirement; an answer that omits a timely offer to redeem does not keep redemption alive, which strengthens the path to a final decree and marketable title-marketability.
  • Procedure over equity. The decision confirms Rhode Island courts will enforce the statutory redemption mechanics even where the result is forfeiture, narrowing the room for equitable relief from a missed offer.

Good-law status

Still good law. Decided March 17, 2023; not overruled or limited as of last_verified 2026-06-02.

Why it matters

Westconnaug is the most recent Rhode Island Supreme Court word on how the statutory right of redemption must be exercised inside a tax-title foreclosure — the offer to redeem is a hard, return-day deadline, not a flexible equitable allowance. It governs the redemption mechanics that decide who keeps the property.

  • tyler-v-hennepin-county — constitutional surplus baseline (distinct issue; Rhode Island’s strict-foreclosure decree returns no residual equity).
  • mullane-v-central-hanover — notice baseline relevant to the parallel tax-title-validity challenge under § 44-9-31.

Applies in →

rhode-island (binding state-supreme-court authority).

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