from the Superior Court of the State of Alaska, Third
Judicial District, Dillingham, Superior Court No.
3DI-13-00107 CI Pat L. Douglass, Judge.
Henry Bingman, Sr., pro se, Dillingham, Appellant.
Charles A. Cacciola, Boyd, Chandler & Falconer, LLP,
Anchorage, for Appellee.
Before: Stowers, Chief Justice, Winfree, Maassen, and Bolger,
Justices. [Fabe, Justice, not participating.]
delinquent taxpayer sought to redeem his foreclosed property
by offering the city a promissory note for the amount due,
without interest, that would mature 20 years later. The
taxpayer asserted that his offer would be deemed accepted
unless the city satisfied certain requirements to
"terminate its power of acceptance." The city
explicitly rejected the offer by letter and, at the close of
the statutory redemption period, filed for a tax deed in
superior court. The taxpayer intervened, arguing that he had
redeemed the property, but the superior court ruled there was
no contract between him and the city. The taxpayer appeals;
finding no error, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
Henry Bingman, Sr., the owner of 14 parcels of real property
in the City of Dillingham, did not pay property taxes on the
parcels from 2006 to 2011. He eventually paid the 2006-2007
taxes, but the City petitioned for foreclosure of his
property because of the taxes still outstanding.
superior court entered a judgment and decree of foreclosure
in June 2014, conveying Bingman's property to the City
subject to a statutory one-year right of
redemption. Four days later the City received from
Bingman a "Security Agreement" and a
"Promissory Note." In the security agreement,
Bingman accepted liability for the 2008-2011 taxes and
penalties. The promissory note, which would mature in 20
years, stated that Bingman "promise[s] to pay to the
order of the City of Dillingham . . . $88, 250.49, " the
present value of the delinquency (but without future
interest). The agreement provided that once the note was
delivered to and accepted by the City, its tax judgment would
be deemed satisfied and, in exchange, the City would be
entitled to enforce the note against Bingman. In essence,
Bingman offered to satisfy the tax judgment against him with
his own promise that he would pay the taxes in 20 years.
security agreement required the City, in order to effectively
reject Bingman's offer, to (1) return the agreement and
all attachments; (2) deliver a corrected statement of
account; (3) deliver notification of refusal of tender and
provide legal citations explaining why the tender was
defective; and (4) deliver a signed notification of rejection
with legal citations and an affidavit explaining why the
agreement was unreasonable, in a form admissible in court.
The City was given 14 days to reject the agreement; silence
or an inadequate rejection would constitute acceptance. And
any correspondence mailed to an address other than
Bingman's California "Service Address" would
not be considered "received" by Bingman.
16, 2014, the City mailed a letter in which it rejected all
of Bingman's "terms, offers, proposals, and
requests"; the letter was sent to Bingman's
Dillingham address instead of the California address he had
designated for service. The City did not return the
promissory note or any other of Bingman's documents.
Bingman asserts that by June 28 - after his 14-day deadline -
he had not received the City's letter. Over the year that
followed he did not make any other attempts to redeem the