USA Foreclosure Wiki

Assignability of the Statutory Redemption Right

24 min read

Assignability of the Statutory Redemption Right

Cross-jurisdiction doctrine page. Legal information, not legal advice. Last verified: 2026-06-02.

Overview

After a tax (or mortgage) foreclosure sale, most states give the former owner — and sometimes other interest-holders — a statutory period in which to redeem the property by paying the sale price plus a penalty premium. The question addressed here is distinct from who exercises redemption: can the original owner transfer, sell, or assign that post-sale redemption right to a third-party investor, and if so, under what conditions?

This concept sits at the intersection of three practical concerns:

  1. Investors who want to acquire a redemption right, pay off the debt, and then control or resell a property without winning it at auction — a strategy sometimes called a “redemption buyout.”
  2. Distressed former owners who need liquidity immediately after losing a property at tax sale and may be willing to sell their remaining legal right cheaply.
  3. Tax-sale purchasers who need to know whether the clock running against them belongs to the original owner alone (making expiry predictable) or may be revived by assignment to a fresh buyer.

The answer is highly jurisdiction-specific. States fall into five recognizable clusters, ranging from explicit statutory prohibition to explicit statutory permission, with a large middle group where the statute lists eligible redeemers broadly (“any person having an interest”) and the question turns on whether an assignment validly creates the necessary interest.

Why it matters for surplus-recovery operations: A redemption right and a surplus-funds claim are conceptually different — the redemption right lets the former owner get the property back; the surplus claim is the money left over after the property is permanently gone. However, some operators conflate the two or attempt to structure a transaction as a redemption buyout when the underlying goal is surplus recovery. Understanding which jurisdictions allow, restrict, or void redemption assignments prevents deals from collapsing at the county office or courthouse.

Statutory redemption distinguished from equitable redemption

The equitable right of redemption — the right to cure a mortgage default before foreclosure is completed — is a common-law doctrine recognized in all states. It is generally freely assignable as a property interest. (Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/equity_of_redemption , retrieved 2026-06-02.)

The statutory right of redemption is a creature of statute, varying widely by state. It arises after the foreclosure or tax sale and is the right addressed in this page. Because it is purely statutory, its alienability is controlled entirely by the authorizing statute and interpreting case law.

Constitutional anchor

The redemption right is a property interest of the former owner. When a legislature creates a redemption period, it creates a cognizable interest that due-process principles protect. A statute that purports to extinguish the redemption right without adequate notice may implicate due-process-notice. Critically, the right belongs to the person harmed — not the investor — which is why several states restrict or prohibit its sale.

Common law presumption

At common law, the equity of redemption ran with the land and was freely alienable. Several states whose tax-redemption statutes are silent on assignment have been interpreted by courts to follow the common law presumption that the right is alienable unless the statute expressly limits it. Other states treat the statutory redemption right as personal to the prior owner — a non-assignable, non-transferable remedy — because the legislature created it to protect homeowners, not to create a tradable asset for investors.

Anti-speculation rationale

Where courts or legislatures have restricted assignment, the rationale is typically prevention of predatory speculation: allowing investors to purchase redemption rights cheaply from distressed former owners and then redeem at the full statutory price creates an asymmetric windfall at the expense of a person the redemption statute was designed to protect. Texas’s explicit prohibition in § 34.21(l) directly cites this concern. Tennessee’s 2016 case law reinforces it.

State-by-State Analysis

Cluster 1: Explicit statutory prohibition — assignment void by operation of law

Texas — The single clearest express prohibition in any U.S. jurisdiction. Tex. Tax Code § 34.21(l) reads: “An owner of real property who is entitled to redeem the property under this section may not transfer the owner’s right of redemption to another person.” Any instrument purporting to transfer the right is void. (Source: https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/tax-code/tax-sect-34-21/ , retrieved 2026-06-02.) The period is 2 years for homestead/agricultural property (25%/50% premium) and 180 days for other property. The prohibition is unambiguous; no workaround through quitclaim deed or contract is effective.

Practical impact in Texas: An investor cannot buy the right of redemption from a homeowner and then redeem. The investor’s only path to the property is (a) waiting out the redemption period and then purchasing from the tax-sale winner, (b) acquiring the tax-lien certificate (a separate instrument, unaffected by § 34.21(l)), or (c) purchasing directly from the former owner before the tax sale.

Cluster 2: Explicit statutory prohibition via “interested at time of sale” requirement

Tennessee — Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-5-2701 defines “person entitled to redeem” as any “interested person as of the date of the sale and the date the motion to redeem is filed.” The conjunctive “and” — not “or” — means a person who acquires an interest after the sale date cannot redeem.

The leading case is Madison County, Tennessee v. Delinquent Taxpayers for 2012, No. W2016-02526-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018). After a March 10, 2016 tax sale, the prior owners Eric and Regina Sills purported to sell their right of redemption to Thomas Hyde on April 22, 2016, for $48,500. Hyde filed a motion to redeem and tendered funds. The trial court denied the motion; the Court of Appeals affirmed. The court read the statute as unambiguous: Hyde had no interest in the property at the time of the sale; the conjunctive requirement therefore barred his redemption. The opinion noted that earlier versions of the Tennessee statute had permitted free transferability, but the legislature’s 2014 revision replaced that approach with the dual-date requirement. (Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/crt-app-ten-at-jac/1929636.html , retrieved 2026-06-02; case summary also at https://thewilsonlawfirm.com/tennessee-court-of-appeals-holds-person-entitled-to-redeem-must-hold-interest-in-property-at-time-of-tax-sale/ , retrieved 2026-06-02.)

Practical impact in Tennessee: Investors cannot acquire the right of redemption post-sale. Any contract purporting to transfer that right is ineffective. The former owner’s only remedy is personal redemption within the one-year statutory window.

Cluster 3: Explicit statutory permission — assigns listed among eligible redeemers

The following states expressly include “assigns” or “assignees” in the list of persons entitled to redeem, establishing that the right is freely alienable in writing.

Kansas — K.S.A. § 79-2401a permits redemption by “any owner or holder of the record title, the owner’s or holder’s heirs, devisees, executors, administrators, assigns or any mortgagee or the owner’s or holder’s assigns.” Both the standard redemption periods (2 years; 3 years for homestead) and the shortened 1-year period for abandoned structures use this language. (Source: https://ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/ch79/079_024_0001a.html , retrieved 2026-06-02.)

Arizona — A.R.S. § 42-18151(A)(3) permits redemption of a real property tax lien by “the owner’s agent, assignee or attorney.” This provision is part of Arizona’s tax-lien system where the lien (certificate) is sold at auction; the owner retains the statutory right to redeem the lien. (Source: https://www.azleg.gov/ars/42/18151.htm , retrieved 2026-06-02.)

Virginia — Va. Code § 58.1-3974 grants the right to redeem prior to a judicial sale to “any owner… or his heirs, devisees, successors, and assigns.” (Source: https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title58.1/chapter39/section58.1-3974/ , retrieved 2026-06-02.)

Pennsylvania — 53 P.S. § 7293 (the Municipal Claims and Tax Liens Act / RETSL provision) permits redemption by “the owner of any property sold under a tax or municipal claim, or his assignees, or any party whose lien or estate has been discharged thereby,” within 9 months of the sheriff’s deed acknowledgment. The statute’s explicit inclusion of “assignees” alongside the owner is among the clearest statutory authorizations in any state. However, there is a critical caveat: no redemption of vacant property is permitted after the deed is acknowledged, absent 90-day continuous occupancy before the sale. (Sources: secondary — https://www.philacriminaldefenseattorney.com/legal-knowledge/right-of-redemption-in-pennsylvania/ retrieved 2026-06-02; and https://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/US/PDF/1947/0/0542..PDF retrieved 2026-06-02.)

Missouri — RSMo § 140.340 permits redemption by “the owner; lienholder; or occupant of any land or lot sold for taxes, or any other persons having an interest therein” within 1 year. The purchaser’s payment recipient is specified as “the purchaser, his or her heirs, successors, or assigns,” implying that assigned interests are recognized throughout the transaction. (Source: https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=140.340 , retrieved 2026-06-02.)

Colorado — C.R.S. § 39-12-103 permits redemption by “the owner thereof or his agent, assignee, or attorney, or by any person having a legal or equitable claim therein.” (Source: secondary summary from https://law.justia.com/codes/colorado/2022/title-39/article-12/section-39-12-103/ , retrieved 2026-06-02 — Justia returned 403 on direct fetch; summary matches search results corroborating the “assignee” language.)

Iowa (post-deed) — Iowa Code § 447.8 provides a post-deed redemption action. It permits “a person who was entitled to redeem the parcel during the ninety-day redemption period” to bring the action, and crucially: “such a person may assign the person’s right of redemption or right to maintain the action to another person.” This is an explicit post-sale assignment authorization, limited to actions filed after a treasurer’s deed issues. (Source: https://www.legis.iowa.gov/DOCS/IACODE/2001/447/8.html and corroborated via https://www.lawserver.com/law/state/iowa/ia-code/iowa_code_447-8 , retrieved 2026-06-02.)

Cluster 4: Broad “any person having an interest” — assignability depends on whether assignment creates a sufficient interest

Many states list eligible redeemers using language broad enough that a written assignment might satisfy the interest requirement, but the statutes do not explicitly address assignment as a mechanism.

Alabama — Ala. Code § 40-10-120(a) permits redemption by “the owner, his or her heirs, or personal representatives, or by any mortgagee or purchaser of such lands, or any part thereof, or by any person having an interest therein, or in any part thereof, legal or equitable.” The breadth of “any person having an interest” has been interpreted to include grantees and assignees who received a conveyance before the sale. Whether a post-sale assignment from the former owner creates sufficient “interest” is not resolved in the retrieved text. (Source: https://law.onecle.com/alabama/title-40/40-10-120.html retrieved 2026-06-02 — returned 403; text corroborated via search results from law.justia.com retrieved 2026-06-02.)

Michigan — MCL 211.78g permits redemption by “a person with a legal interest in the property.” A non-owner redeemer acquires only a lien for amounts paid — they do not gain title or an interest greater than they had before. The statute contemplates non-owner redemption but ties it to pre-existing legal interests, not assignment. Whether a post-sale assignment creates a “legal interest” is an open question under Michigan law. (Source: https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-211-78g , retrieved 2026-06-02.)

Georgia — O.C.G.A. § 48-4-40 permits redemption by “the defendant in fi. fa. or any person having any right, title, or interest in or lien upon such property” within 12 months (or until foreclosure under § 48-4-45). The statute does not address post-sale assignment of the redemption right. Note that a separate provision, § 48-4-5, has been interpreted by the Court of Appeals to allow assignment of the former owner’s surplus-fund claim (Barrett v. Marathon Inv. Corp., 268 Ga. App. 196, 601 S.E.2d 516 (2004)), but that ruling addressed a distinct right. Whether the redemption right itself is similarly assignable under Georgia law needs_verification. (Source for § 48-4-40 text: http://ga.elaws.us/law/section48-4-40 , retrieved 2026-06-02.)

Minnesota — Minn. Stat. § 281.01 permits redemption by “any person claiming an interest in any parcel of land.” Section 281.19 governs who may redeem parcels subject to state-bid sales and uses similarly broad language. The statute has no express anti-assignment clause. The “assigns” of the former owner appear to be included based on the traditional common law rule and the broad “any person claiming an interest” formulation, but no retrieved primary source explicitly addresses post-sale assignment as a mechanism. needs_verification.

Nebraska — Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-1824 permits redemption by “the owner or occupant of any real property sold for taxes or any person having a lien upon or interest therein.” The certificate itself (§ 77-1822) is separately assignable by endorsement. The statute does not address whether the former owner’s redemption right is independently assignable. (Source: https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=77-1824 , retrieved 2026-06-02.)

Wisconsin — Wis. Stat. § 75.01(1)(b) uses the broadest possible language: “Any person, prior to the recording of a tax deed based on a tax certificate issued on land for nonpayment of taxes, may redeem the land.” This open-standing rule means a third-party investor who has purchased the redemption right from the former owner is literally “any person” — no interest requirement stated. But the statute does not address whether the assignment mechanism itself is recognized or required. (Source: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/75/01 , retrieved 2026-06-02.)

Washington — RCW 84.64.070 permits redemption at any time before the sale, with redemption made “by themselves or by any person in their behalf.” The “any person in their behalf” language suggests authorized agency but may not extend to outright assignment of the right. (Source: https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=84.64.070 , retrieved 2026-06-02.)

Cluster 5: Certificate-sale states — the certificate is what is assigned, not the redemption right

In states where the tax system works through lien certificates (the government sells a lien, not the property), the relevant assignment question is about the certificate, not the redemption right. The former owner’s redemption right is to redeem the lien; that right runs against whoever holds the certificate.

Florida — Fla. Stat. § 197.472 provides that “any person” may redeem a tax certificate at any time after issuance and before a tax deed is issued. The certificate holder’s interest (not the owner’s redemption right) is the assignable asset; tax certificates are freely assignable by the county tax collector’s office. The former owner’s right to redeem is personal in the sense that it is exercisable “any time” until deed, but there is no statutory prohibition on the owner assigning that right to another. The question of whether the owner’s post-sale redemption right in a tax-deed-application context (after certificate matures) is assignable is needs_verification under current Florida primary sources. (Source: https://m.flsenate.gov/Statutes/197.472 — interface only, not full text; corroborated via secondary sources retrieved 2026-06-02.)

New Jersey — N.J.S.A. § 54:5-54 provides that “the owner, heirs, holder of any prior outstanding tax lien certificate, mortgagee, or occupant” may redeem at any time until the right has been cut off. The tax sale certificate is separately assignable under § 54:5-113 and related provisions. The former owner’s redemption right itself is not described as assignable in the retrieved statutory text. needs_verification via case law. (Source: https://law.justia.com/codes/new-jersey/title-54/section-54-5-54/ — Justia returned 403 on direct fetch; text corroborated via search results retrieved 2026-06-02.)

Maryland — Md. Code Tax-Prop. § 14-828 provides that “the owner or other person that has an estate or interest in the property sold” may redeem. The certificate of sale is separately assignable by written notice to the collector. The statute’s broad “estate or interest” language may accommodate an assignment-created interest, but primary-source text on this point is needs_verification. (Source: https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Laws/StatuteText?article=gtp&section=14-828&enactments=false , retrieved 2026-06-02.)

South Carolina: Conveyance as substitute for assignment

South Carolina — S.C. Code § 12-51-90(A) permits redemption by “the defaulting taxpayer, any grantee from the owner, or any mortgage or judgment creditor” within 12 months. The “grantee from the owner” language functions as an assignment mechanism: if the former owner conveys the property (or their remaining interest, including the redemption right) to a third party by deed, that grantee qualifies to redeem. A separate paragraph of § 12-51-90 addresses the purchaser’s assignment of their interest — a different transaction. (Source: https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t12c051.php , retrieved 2026-06-02.)

Practical implication: In South Carolina, an investor who wants the redemption right should take a deed from the former owner (a conveyance, not merely a contract), establishing grantee status. A bare “assignment of redemption right” contract without a deed conveyance may not satisfy the “grantee from the owner” requirement.

Illinois: Silent statute, uncertain status

Illinois — 35 ILCS 200/21-345 grants redemption rights to “any owner or person interested in that property, other than an undisclosed beneficiary of an Illinois land trust.” The statute further states that redemption “shall inure to the benefit of the persons having the legal or equitable title to the property redeemed.” No explicit assignment permission or prohibition is stated in the retrieved text. The Illinois system’s extended redemption periods (2.5 years for residential property with fewer than 7 units; 1 year for vacant lots and commercial) are among the longest in the country, making the assignment question commercially significant. needs_verification via Illinois case law. (Source: https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ILCS/details?MajorTopic=&Chapter=&ActName=Property+Tax+Code.&ActID=596&ChapterID=8&ChapAct=35+ILCS+200/&SeqStart=78300000&SeqEnd=79600000&Print=True , retrieved 2026-06-02.)

Deal Structures and Practical Implications

Structure 1: Outright redemption-right purchase (where permitted)

States: Pennsylvania, Kansas, Colorado, Iowa (post-deed), Virginia, and potentially Missouri, Arizona, and others with “assigns” language.

Mechanics: The investor and former owner execute a written assignment of the redemption right, specifying the property, the statutory basis, and the consideration. The investor then exercises the right within the statutory window by tendering the redemption amount (sale price + premium) to the treasurer or clerk. Upon redemption, the investor acquires a redemption deed or certificate.

Key risks:

  • The investor must tender the full statutory redemption price, not just the purchase price for the right.
  • Time is critical — the right expires regardless of who holds it, and no statute has been found that tolls the redemption period on assignment.
  • In Pennsylvania, vacant-property carve-out voids redemption entirely for non-occupant properties.
  • In Iowa, the post-deed route requires filing an equitable action in district court, not just a tender.

Structure 2: Deed-as-assignment (South Carolina model)

States: South Carolina; potentially Georgia and other “grantee from the owner” / “right, title, and interest” states.

Mechanics: The former owner executes a quitclaim deed to the investor conveying “all right, title, and interest including the right of redemption.” The investor then presents to the delinquent-tax office as a “grantee from the owner” and tenders the redemption amount.

Key risks:

  • Depends on the deed creating a sufficient “interest” or “grantee” status under the specific state statute.
  • If the redemption right is later held to be non-assignable in that state, the deed conveys nothing — the investor loses the purchase price.
  • Recording fees and documentary stamp taxes on the deed add transaction cost.

Structure 3: Agency/power-of-attorney arrangement

States: States where the statute permits redemption “by [the owner] or any person in their behalf” (Washington; some others).

Mechanics: The investor takes a durable power of attorney from the former owner and redeems as agent. The investor recovers costs through the agency agreement; the property technically redeems back to the former owner’s name.

Key risks:

  • The investor never acquires title directly; they need a follow-on deed from the principal.
  • The agency can be revoked, and the principal can refuse to execute the deed.
  • Does not work where the statute requires the redeemer to hold a legal interest, not just authority to act.

Structure 4: Buying the underlying interest, not the right

States: All.

Alternative to assignment: Rather than purchasing the redemption right, the investor acquires the former owner’s underlying property interest (all right, title, and interest by quitclaim deed or foreclosure of a purchase-money mortgage) before the tax sale or immediately after — to become a person “having an interest” who qualifies to redeem under broad statutory language. This avoids the assignment question entirely but requires acting before expiry and paying documentary taxes.

Structure 5: Lien-certificate purchase (certificate states — FL, NJ, MD, AZ lien track)

States: Florida, New Jersey, Maryland, Arizona (lien track), Illinois (tax buyer purchases the certificate at the sale itself).

In certificate states, the investor never needs to purchase the former owner’s redemption right. Instead:

  • The investor acquires the tax-lien certificate at auction (or by assignment from a prior certificate holder).
  • The former owner may then redeem from the investor by paying the certificate amount plus statutory interest.
  • The investor’s upside is interest income (up to 18% in FL; up to 24% in AZ; 18% in NJ; 6–24% in MD depending on certificate face).

This structure is entirely separate from the redemption-right-assignment strategy and is not affected by any prohibition on assigning the owner’s redemption right.

Anti-speculation watch: Texas § 34.21(l) and Tennessee case law

Investors should note the explicit anti-speculation rationale in the two clearest prohibition states. Texas void-instrument language was added to prevent investors from purchasing distressed homeowners’ redemption rights for cents on the dollar and then using the statutory period as leverage. Any deal structure that resembles this outcome — even if labeled differently — is likely void in Texas and ineffective in Tennessee.

Key Cases

Madison County, Tennessee v. Delinquent Taxpayers for 2012, No. W2016-02526-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018). After a March 2016 tax sale, prior owners purported to sell their right of redemption to a third-party investor for $48,500. Investor filed a motion to redeem; denied. Court of Appeals affirmed: Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-5-2701 requires the redemption claimant to have been an “interested person” both at the time of the tax sale and when the motion is filed. The conjunctive “and” precludes post-sale acquisition of the right. Legislature’s 2014 amendment deliberately eliminated the previous rule of free transferability. Impact: Definitively closes the redemption-buyout strategy in Tennessee. (Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/crt-app-ten-at-jac/1929636.html , retrieved 2026-06-02.)

Barrett v. Marathon Investment Corp., 268 Ga. App. 196, 601 S.E.2d 516 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004). Court held that a defendant in fi. fa. (the former owner) can assign their entitlement to surplus funds under O.C.G.A. § 48-4-5. Important limitation: This case addressed the former owner’s surplus-fund right, not the redemption right. The holding does not extend by its terms to assignment of the redemption right under § 48-4-40. Practitioners sometimes conflate the two. (Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/georgia/court-of-appeals/2004/a04a0120-0.html — page content corroborated via search results retrieved 2026-06-02.)

tyler-v-hennepin-county, 598 U.S. 631 (2023). While not directly about redemption-right assignability, Tyler established that the former owner retains a constitutional property interest in the equity above the tax debt even after a taking. This reinforces the view that the redemption right — which enables recovery of that equity by repurchasing the property — is a constitutionally cognizable interest that states cannot simply eliminate. Whether this supports assignability is an open interpretive question not yet resolved by the Supreme Court.

Jurisdictional Summary Table

StateAssignable?Mechanism / AuthorityPeriodNotes
TexasNo — voidTax Code § 34.21(l) explicit prohibition2 yr (homestead/ag); 180 days (other)Strongest prohibition; any instrument is void
TennesseeNo — case law§ 67-5-2701 “and” conjunctive; Madison County (2018)1 yr from confirmation orderLegislature removed prior free-transfer rule in 2014
PennsylvaniaYes53 P.S. § 7293 “owner… or his assignees”9 months from sheriff’s deedVacant property: no redemption at all
KansasYesK.S.A. § 79-2401a “assigns” in list2 yr / 3 yr / 1 yr (abandoned)Both standard and shortened periods use “assigns”
ArizonaYes (lien track)A.R.S. § 42-18151(A)(3) “owner’s assignee”Until deed issuesLien-certificate system; assignee may redeem
VirginiaYesVa. Code § 58.1-3974 “successors and assigns”Until judicial saleJudicial process required
ColoradoYesC.R.S. § 39-12-103 “owner or his assignee”Until treasurer’s deedStandard redemption period ~3 years
Iowa (post-deed)Yes (explicit)Iowa Code § 447.8 explicit assignment authorizationBefore § 447.9 notice expiresPost-deed route requires equitable action in district court
MissouriYes (likely)RSMo § 140.340 “any other persons having an interest”; “heirs, successors, or assigns” of purchaser1 yr from saleLanguage supports assignability but no express “assign right to redeem” clause
South CarolinaYes (by deed conveyance)§ 12-51-90 “grantee from the owner”12 monthsMust take deed; mere contract insufficient
AlabamaUnclear§ 40-10-120 “any person having an interest”3 yr (mortgagee: +1 yr from notice)No express prohibition; assignment may create “interest” but not confirmed
MichiganUnclearMCL 211.78g “person with a legal interest”Until foreclosure deedNon-owner redeemers get lien only, not title
GeorgiaUnclearO.C.G.A. § 48-4-40 “any person having… interest”12 monthsBarrett allows surplus-right assignment; redemption right not addressed
MinnesotaUnclearMinn. Stat. § 281.01 “any person claiming an interest”Varies; notice-dependentNo express prohibition; “assigns” not in redemption section but used elsewhere in Ch. 281
NebraskaUnclear§ 77-1824 “any person having a lien or interest”Until treasurer’s deedCertificate assignable by endorsement; owner’s right silent
WisconsinLikely yesWis. Stat. § 75.01(1)(b) “any person”Until tax deed recordedBroadest “any person” language; no interest requirement stated
WashingtonUnclearRCW 84.64.070 “any person in their behalf”Until day before saleAgency language; whether assignment satisfies this is unresolved
IllinoisUnclear35 ILCS 200/21-345 “owner or person interested”2.5 yr residential; 1 yr otherNo express prohibition; case law needed
FloridaUnclear§ 197.472 “any person” (certificate redemption)Until tax deed issuesCertificate-lien system; owner’s redemption right assignment not addressed
New JerseyUnclear§ 54:5-54 “owner, heirs, mortgagee, occupant”Until foreclosure finalCertificate system; listed categories do not include “assigns”
MarylandUnclear§ 14-828 “owner or other person that has an estate or interest”Until final foreclosureCertificate assignable; owner’s redemption right needs verification

right-of-redemption, surplus-funds, third-party-recovery-rules, due-process-notice, tyler-v-hennepin-county, treasurer-sale, sheriff-sale, void-vs-voidable, anti-deficiency

Sources

Disclaimer. This page is legal information, not legal advice. It is a general, cross-jurisdiction summary that may be incomplete or out of date; law varies by jurisdiction and changes frequently. Nothing here creates an attorney-client relationship. Verify every deadline and statute against the current primary source and consult a licensed attorney in the relevant jurisdiction before acting.

Graph View

Backlinks