This appeal stems from an order entered pursuant to OCGA § 23-3-601 et seq., in this dispute between Hickory Hill 1185, LLC. “Hickory Hill” and The BX Corporation “BX” over title to a vacant lot “property” in DeKalb County. The superior court adopted and affirmed the findings of the special master and established title to the property in Hickory Hill subject to redemption of the tax deed of BX. For the reasons which follow, we affirm. The salient facts are not in dispute. The property has a chain of title reflecting numerous tax sales. In 1972, Mullings purchased the property, and when Mullings failed to pay the taxes on it, the property was sold in a 1979 tax sale at which DeKalb County was the purchaser. In 1982, DeKalb County conveyed the property by quitclaim deed to Hicks, who subsequently also failed to pay the property taxes. As a result, in 1984, the property was sold in a second tax sale to BX. BX too failed to pay the taxes, so the property was sold in a third tax sale in December 1993 to DeKalb County. Prior to this, in March 1993, BX’s president executed an affidavit, filed and recorded in April 1993, averring that BX’s title to the property acquired under the tax deed had statutorily “ripened by prescription”; however, BX had not been in possession of the property by adverse possession or otherwise. BX did not file a notice of barment under OCGA § 48-4-45.2 No one attempted to redeem the property in the seven years following the 1984 deed to BX. In 2000, Mullings executed a quitclaim deed for the property in favor of Dickson, manager of Community Renewal and Redemption, LLC “CRR”. Dickson paid the back taxes to DeKalb County. Also in 2000, Hicks executed a quitclaim deed to CRR. In 2006, Dickson and CRR conveyed the property to Hickory Hill by warranty deed; Hickory Hill sought unsuccessfully to redeem the property pursuant to OCGA § 48-4-423 in regard to the tax deed held by BX. Hickory Hill then instituted the present petition to quiet title, seeking a declaration that it held fee simple title to the property.4 It further requested referral of the matter to a special master and a finding that it was entitled to redeem BX’s tax deed. BX answered and counterclaimed, asserting to be the fee simple owner of the property.5 BX also filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, asking that the superior court dismiss Hickory Hill’s petition and enter a final order declaring BX to be the owner of the property free and clear of any claim by Hickory Hill. The superior court referred the matters to a special master. Following a hearing, the special master denied BX’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. BX then moved the superior court to overrule the special master, or in the alternative, to adopt the findings of the special master and certify the case for immediate review. The superior court denied the motion to overrule the special master, adopted the findings of the special master, and denied the request for a certificate of immediate review. Following a second hearing, the special master determined that Hickory Hill held an interest in the property as a result of the warranty deed from Dickson and CRR, and that BX held a tax deed from the 1984 purchase. The special master concluded that fee simple title was vested in Hickory Hill subject to BX’s tax deed, which might be redeemed by Hickory Hill to obtain indefeasible title to the property. The superior court adopted the findings and conclusions of the special master and entered the final judgment at issue, conveying title to the property to Hickory Hill following its redemption of BX’s 1984 tax deed.6 BX challenges the superior court’s final judgment as well as its earlier ruling upholding the denial of BX’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. However, the challenges are unavailing.
The title acquired by BX by virtue of its status as holder of the tax deed to the property was not a perfect fee simple title, but rather an inchoate or defeasible title subject to the right of redemption. Mark Turner Properties v. Evans , 274 Ga. 547, 548 1 554 SE2d 492 2001. After expiration of the statutory period for redemption, the right to redeem may be barred either by the giving of notice under OCGA § 48-4-45, which did not occur in this case, or the ripening of title pursuant to OCGA § 48-4-48 1989. Mark Turner Properties v. Evans , supra at 548 1.
