What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Louisiana
In litigation regarding a "tax sale" of real property, Plaintiff/Tax Purchaser files a quiet title action, and heretofore "unlocatable" tax debtor surfaces and contests the quiet title action with a Petition to Annull Tax Sale. The Tax Debtor prevails, composes a judgment for the court's endorsement, and the Court signs the Judgment. The tax Debtor sends a check to the Tax Purchaser for the back taxes, and along with the check he sends a deed for the Plaintiff's endorsement ...a deed that would in effect "sell" the property back to the Tax Debtor for $1.00. A defect in the Judgment composition essentially proves fatal to the Defendant's desired implementation thereof - (the judgment merely decrees that the Plaintiff's quiet title action was denied, and it contains no language annulling the original tax sale nor does it order the Plaintiff to relinquish the Tax Deed to the Defendant). The Tax Debtor does not cash the check that would reimburse her for back taxes paid on the property, nor does she sign the deed relinquishing ownership of the property back to the Tax Debtor, and Tax Purchaser's tax deed of course at that point still stands.
At Defendant's requested show cause hearing, the Court allows the Defendant to deposit the back taxes into the Court's Registry for Plaintiff, thereby meeting their requirement to reimburse the Tax Purchaser for back taxes. The court then orders Plaintiff to "sign land back over" to the Tax Debtor, which she does under protest (denoting same when she signs the deed), and Plaintiff appeals, eventually prevailing in Court of Appeal on the grounds that the foregoing described sequence of events essentially amounted to Defendant's obtaining the verdict by summary proceedings, as opposed to the requisite ordinary proceedings, and the Appeals Court remands to the district Court for further proceedings.
Extensive litigation follows, finally ending up in Court of Appeal yet again, where this time the Tax Debtor prevails. At this point - and despite the fact that the Tax Purchaser did not prevail at second appellate court hearing, - the Defendant owes Plaintiff nearly $2000.00 in costs, etc., from earlier appeal, etc., and the Tax Purchaser still has about $2500.00 in the Court's Registry for the back taxes she paid.
Defendant Tax Debtor files rule to show cause why Defendant is not entitled to retrieve the Tax Purchaser's funds from the Court's Registry to cover court costs, and he supplies absolutely no verification of any sort of calculation(s), itemize list of costs, etc. Again, I stress that at this point the Plaintiff Tax Purchaser is owed about $2000 in costs from the Tax Debtor Defendant, AND Tax Purchaser Plaintiff also holds about $2500.00 in the Court's Registry. Plaintiff can clearly show the resolution of the costs in documentation, and she plans to do as much at the show cause hearing.
Today, while waiting to have the judge order a hearing date, she finds out that the ad hoc, out-of-town judge signed the Defendant's order that was filed along with his motion to withdraw funds from the Court's Registry, but before doing so, he "scratches out" all of the language regarding a potential hearing date, etc., and writes in language that in effect turns this order which was a request for a contradictory hearing regarding the disbursal of registry funds into a simple, ex parte move for Defendant to withdraw Plaintiff's funds from the Court's Registry. I mean, instead of ordering a hearing on who should be the recipient of the Registry funds as was requested by the Defendant, this judge simply severely redacts and recomposes the submitted order that would have set a hearing date, and in its place he issues this one sided order that transfers the Plaintiff's funds currently in the Court's Registry over to the Defendant for supposed costs.
I realize that it may seem slightly odd that the original Plaintiff would be owed money for costs by the eventually prevailing Defendant and Tax Debtor, but that is factual. My question is, is this allowable ex parte? Obviously, the Defendant could (have) present(ed) the Court with evidence of final cost resolution at hearing, but now, any potential hearing has been ruled out by the court, and the court has transferred funds that were improperly based on a unilateral claim absent any verification whatsoever, and it seems like something's not quite proper about that.
In litigation regarding a "tax sale" of real property, Plaintiff/Tax Purchaser files a quiet title action, and heretofore "unlocatable" tax debtor surfaces and contests the quiet title action with a Petition to Annull Tax Sale. The Tax Debtor prevails, composes a judgment for the court's endorsement, and the Court signs the Judgment. The tax Debtor sends a check to the Tax Purchaser for the back taxes, and along with the check he sends a deed for the Plaintiff's endorsement ...a deed that would in effect "sell" the property back to the Tax Debtor for $1.00. A defect in the Judgment composition essentially proves fatal to the Defendant's desired implementation thereof - (the judgment merely decrees that the Plaintiff's quiet title action was denied, and it contains no language annulling the original tax sale nor does it order the Plaintiff to relinquish the Tax Deed to the Defendant). The Tax Debtor does not cash the check that would reimburse her for back taxes paid on the property, nor does she sign the deed relinquishing ownership of the property back to the Tax Debtor, and Tax Purchaser's tax deed of course at that point still stands.
At Defendant's requested show cause hearing, the Court allows the Defendant to deposit the back taxes into the Court's Registry for Plaintiff, thereby meeting their requirement to reimburse the Tax Purchaser for back taxes. The court then orders Plaintiff to "sign land back over" to the Tax Debtor, which she does under protest (denoting same when she signs the deed), and Plaintiff appeals, eventually prevailing in Court of Appeal on the grounds that the foregoing described sequence of events essentially amounted to Defendant's obtaining the verdict by summary proceedings, as opposed to the requisite ordinary proceedings, and the Appeals Court remands to the district Court for further proceedings.
Extensive litigation follows, finally ending up in Court of Appeal yet again, where this time the Tax Debtor prevails. At this point - and despite the fact that the Tax Purchaser did not prevail at second appellate court hearing, - the Defendant owes Plaintiff nearly $2000.00 in costs, etc., from earlier appeal, etc., and the Tax Purchaser still has about $2500.00 in the Court's Registry for the back taxes she paid.
Defendant Tax Debtor files rule to show cause why Defendant is not entitled to retrieve the Tax Purchaser's funds from the Court's Registry to cover court costs, and he supplies absolutely no verification of any sort of calculation(s), itemize list of costs, etc. Again, I stress that at this point the Plaintiff Tax Purchaser is owed about $2000 in costs from the Tax Debtor Defendant, AND Tax Purchaser Plaintiff also holds about $2500.00 in the Court's Registry. Plaintiff can clearly show the resolution of the costs in documentation, and she plans to do as much at the show cause hearing.
Today, while waiting to have the judge order a hearing date, she finds out that the ad hoc, out-of-town judge signed the Defendant's order that was filed along with his motion to withdraw funds from the Court's Registry, but before doing so, he "scratches out" all of the language regarding a potential hearing date, etc., and writes in language that in effect turns this order which was a request for a contradictory hearing regarding the disbursal of registry funds into a simple, ex parte move for Defendant to withdraw Plaintiff's funds from the Court's Registry. I mean, instead of ordering a hearing on who should be the recipient of the Registry funds as was requested by the Defendant, this judge simply severely redacts and recomposes the submitted order that would have set a hearing date, and in its place he issues this one sided order that transfers the Plaintiff's funds currently in the Court's Registry over to the Defendant for supposed costs.
I realize that it may seem slightly odd that the original Plaintiff would be owed money for costs by the eventually prevailing Defendant and Tax Debtor, but that is factual. My question is, is this allowable ex parte? Obviously, the Defendant could (have) present(ed) the Court with evidence of final cost resolution at hearing, but now, any potential hearing has been ruled out by the court, and the court has transferred funds that were improperly based on a unilateral claim absent any verification whatsoever, and it seems like something's not quite proper about that.