Case ID: mich-app_15/html/0534-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Citriam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

SIMASKO v. TOWNSHIP OF HARRISON
    1. Property — Tax Sale — Redemption—Improper Notice — Laches.
    Improper service of notice of tax redemption on last grantee of record, does not excuse laches on the part of one claiming under him who has notice of the tax sale (OL 1948, § 211.140).
    2. Same — Tax Sale — Laches—Improper Notice of Redemption.
    Laches, designed to protect future innoeent parties from the failure promptly to assert a right, arises after a reasonable time following a notice of tax sale received by the last grantee of reeord, although improperly served on him, where his successor attacking the notice of redemption has notice of the tax sale (CL 1948, § 211.140).
    3. Same — Tax Sale — Laches.
    A long delay by one claiming under the last grantee of reeord following notice of tax sale received by the grantee, although improperly served on him, precludes claimant’s , successful assertion of rights in the property, where claimant' has notice of the tax sale (CL 1948, §-211.140).
    References for Points in Headnotes
    [1] 51 Am Jur; Taxation § 1097 et seq.
    
    [2, 3] 51 Am Jur, Taxation § ] 116 et seq
    
    Appeal from Macomb, Spier (James E.), J.
    Submitted Division 2 January 7, 1969, at Lansing.
    (Docket No. 4,913.)
    Decided January 28, 1969.
    Leave to appeal denied April 16, 1969.
    See 381 Mich 815.
    Application for certiorari filed in the Supreme Court of the United States August 18, 1969.
    Complaint by Leonard Simasko to quiet title to real estate. From a judgment dismissing complaint and quieting title in defendant, plaintiff appeals.
    Affirmed.
    
      L. Edwin Wenger, for plaintiff.
    
      Hunter D. Stair, for defendant.
   Per Citriam.

In 1966, plaintiff filed an action to qniet title against defendant, who field a deed under a delinquent tax sale in 1958. Tfie lower court entered a judgment dismissing tfie complaint and quieting title in tfie defendant on tfie basis of lacfies.

Plaintiff contends tfiat lacfies did not bar fiis suit because improper notice of redemption was served on fiis grantor, according to CL 1948, § 211.140 (Stat Ann 1960 Rev § 7.198). Tfie statute.requirqs service of tfie notice on tfie last grantee of record by the sheriff of tfie county of tfie grantee’s residence or of tfie county where tfie grantee may be found. . Here, a deputy sheriff of an adjoining county served plaintiff’s grantor.

Tfie trial judge did not err by finding plaintiff guilty of lacfies, thus barring fiis equitable remedies. Lacfies, designed to protect future innocent parties from tfie failure promptly to assert a right, arose after a reasonable time following plaintiff’s grant- or’s notice of tfie 1958 tax sale. Aztec Cooper Co. v. Auditor General (1901), 128 Mich 615; Cook v; Hall (1900), 123 Mich 378. Furthermore, a landowner who has notice tfiat his land has been-sold for taxes must have tfie sale set aside in circuit court within one year thereafter, no matter how fie obtained notice. Odgers v. Lentz (1947), 319 Mich 502. Tfie lower court correctly determined tfiat plaintiff bad notice of the tax sale and tfiat the lengthy delay in filing fiis action against defendant precluded plaintiff’s successful assertion of rights in tfie property.

Affirmed.

Quinn, P. J., and McGregor and V. J. Brennan,'' JJ., concurred.