Case Title: MADDEN v ZIMMERMAN

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1975-02-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 12670 I N T H E S U P R E M E C O U R T O F THE STATE O F MONTANA 1974 T H O M A S L. MADDEN, Administrator of t h e Estate of Grace G. Madden, deceased, P l a i n t i f f and Counter Defendant, BERNARD J . ZIMMERMAN, Defendant and Counter Claimant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of the F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Gordon R. Bennett, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant : C. W. Leaphart, Jr., argued, Helena, Montana For Respondent : Small, Cumins and Hatch, Helena, Montana Gregory A. Jackson argued, and Carl A. Hatch, appeared, Helena, Montana Submitted : November 22, 1974 Filed : 1 -7 M r . J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court. This i s an appeal from a judgment entered i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Lewis and Clark County, i n a q u i e t t i t l e a c t i o n brought by Thomas L. Madden, i n h i s capacity a s administrator of t h e e s t a t e of Grace G. Madden, deceased, t o recover property f o r t h e e s t a t e conveyed t o defendant Bernard J. Zimmerman by a tax deed. P l a i n t i f f Madden appeals from a decree quieting t i t l e i n defendant Zimmerman. Grace G. Madden died on September 11, 1969. A t t h e time of her death she was the owner of l o t s 24 through 32 i n Block 36, Lennox Addition t o t h e City of Helena. She l e f t surviving t h r e e sons: Lee Madden, James Madden and Thomas L. Madden. Thomas L. Madden was appointed administrator of her e s t a t e on October 27, 1969. The address of the administrator indicated on a l l papers was "1n c a r e of C. W. Leaphart, Jr., Montana Club Bldg., Helena, Montana 59601". The residence of Thomas L. Madden was Great F a l l s , Montana. An inventory and appraisement was f i l e d f o r the e s t a t e on January 21, 1970, and t h e above described property was appraised a t $9,000. The taxes on the property were delinquent f o r the years 1967, 1968, 1970 and 1971. The taxes were assessed i n t h e name of Grace Madden i n t h e years 1967, 1971, and 1972 i n c a r e of J e r r y I. Madden, 1805 Joslyn, Helena, Montana. For the years 1968, 1969 and 1970 they were assessed t o her a t 1823 Highland, Helena, Montana. The properties were offered f o r t a x s a l e by Lewis and Clark County on July 15, 1969; t h e r e were no purchasers. The properties were again offered f o r s a l e on July 16, 1969 and t h e p r o p e r t i e s w e r e s t r u c k o f f t o Lewis and Clark County, O n March 27, 1972, t h e county's c e r t i f i c a t e was sold t o defendant Bernard J. Zimmerman f o r the b i d p r i c e plus t h e taxes f o r the past t h r e e years. Within seven days of t h e r e c e i p t of the c e r t i f i c a t e , defendant made a p p l i c a t i o n f o r t a x deed. The n o t i c e of a p p l i c a t i o n f o r t a x deed was sent t o Grace Madden's address a s it appeared on the 1972 records of t h e county t r e a s u r e r , t h e assessor, county c l a s s i f i c a t i o n department and t h e county c l e r k and recorder. The l e t t e r was returned t o sender whereupon i t was again mailed t o the same address and once again it was returned bearing a stamp of t h e United S t a t e s post o f f i c e which revealed Grace Madden's address unknown, and t h a t she had moved and l e f t no address. Defendant Zimmerman then caused t o be published notice of appli- cation f o r t a x deed, once a week f o r two successive weeks i n the Independent Record, a newspaper published i n Helena, Lewis and Clark County, Montana. The notice of application was published April 5 and 1 2 , 1972. Sixty-two days a f t e r the l a s t notice was published, Zimmerman applied for the deed and eight days l a t e r received it. The application was supported by the f i l i n g of an a f f i d a v i t of proof of service of notice with the county c l e r k and recorder. Subsequent t o the issuance of the tax deed, p l a i n t i f f commenced proceedings t o s e l l the properties and became aware t h a t a t a x deed had been issued t o defendant Zimmerman. Thereafter p l a i n t i f f commenced an action t o quiet the t i t l e t o the properties on February 5 , 1973. Hearing was held before the court, s i t t i n g without a jury, on June 28, 1973. Witnesses were called and testimony was taken. Chadwick Smith, Esq., former attorney f o r defendant, t e s t i f i e d t h a t a l l of the s t a t u t o r y requirements concerning application f o r tax deed were followed by Zimmerman. M r . Lee Dickey, chief deputy treasurer of Lewis and Clark County, t e s t i f i e d the address and the owner of property are determined by the county t r e a s u r e r ' s o f f i c e by r e f e r r i n g t o i t s records, which a r e taken from the c l a s s i f i c a - t i o n department's records, which a r e i n turn taken from the c l e r k and recorder's records. Verna Williams of the c l e r k and recorder's o f f i c e t e s t i f i e d t h a t she was a representative of the o f f i c e and was the custodian of a l l records. In addition, she t e s t i f i e d t h a t a l l records i n regard t o the tax deed were duly f i l e d and recorded i n t h a t office. A t the hearing a l l testimony and documents mncerning the tax deed were admitted by the court without objection. Thereafter the court entered i t s judgment i n favor of defendant Zimmerman on November 2, 1973, finding t h a t p l a i n t i f f Thomas L. Madden and h e i r s of Grace E. Madden had no r i g h t , t i t l e and i n t e r e s t in and to the properties in dispute. Following the entry of judgment, all documents concerning the tax deed were returned to and filed in the county clerk and recorder's office. Plaintiff Madden appeals the judgment and presents four issues on appeal. We will discuss the first two issues together. Appellant argues that improper notice was given by respondent Zimmerman in his application for a tax deed. Section 84-4151, R.C.M. 1947, states that 60 days before applying for a tax deed, the applicant must give notice to the owner by registered mail. 1 1 Where the post office address of the owner is unknown the appli- cant shall publih once a week for two ( 2 ) successive weeks in a newspaper published in the county where the property is situate, a notice substantially in the following form * * *." Respondent sent a registered letter to the address taken from the 1972 records of the county treasurer. When the letter was returned undelivered, it was again mailed with return receipt re- quested; again it was returned undelivered marked "address unknown". Respondent then published the required notice in the Independent Record once a week for two consecutive weeks as required by section 84-4151, R.C.M. 1947, before applying for the tax deed. However, appellant argues that the address of the administrator could be determined, as well as the addresses of the heirs of Grace Madden, from the estate file. Also notice to creditors of the estate was published long before the application for tax deed, which should have put respondent on notice that the estate was in probate. The statute sets forth the notice required by a petitioner for a tax deed, to require more is not within the power of this Court. To require the petitioner to search other or all legal records and to be on notice of all legal publications which may affect title to the property would be onerous. There are numerous land trans- actions which stand unrecorded in escrow for long periods of time, so what may appear fair and equitable in this case by additional requirements, would over a long period of time become an unequitable burden. Therefore the burden must fall to the taxpayer to keep the taxing a u t h o r i t i e s informed of h i s i n t e r e s t i n the land and h i s current address. Section 84-508, R.C.M. 1947. Appellant was administrator of the e s t a t e f o r three years and gave no notice t o the taxing a u t h o r i t i e s nor made any attempt t o pay the taxes. The statement of t h i s Court i n Shaw v. City of Kalispell, 135 Mont. 284, 293, 340 P.2d 523, quoting from E l l i o t t on Roads and S t r e e t s , 4 t h Ed. V. 1, 5 363, pp. 420,421, would bear on responsibility of those who have an i n t e r e s t : I' I Where the s t a t u t e requires notice t o owners of property, it i s s u f f i c i e n t , a s a general r u l e , t o give notice t o those whose t i t l e s appear of record. This must ordinarily be the r u l e i n high- way cases as well a s i n other cases, since there i s no other method provided by law f o r ascertaining who a r e the owners of land, and i f the owner by h i s own carelessness omits t o give the l e g a l notice of h i s t i t l e he is so much i n f a u l t a s not t o be e n t i t l e d t o be heard t o aver t h a t he was not given notice of the proceedings taken t o appropriate the land."' Appellant's t h i r d issue i s whether t h e creditors of Grace Madden's e s t a t e ought t o be l e f t with no remedy, a s the only opportunity f o r t h e i r claims t o be s a t i s f i e d was from the s a l e of the a s s e t s of the e s t a t e . There a r e no c r e d i t o r s involved i n t h e case before t h i s Court and we w i l l not attempt t o evaluate t h e i r claims i n t h i s Opinion. The s t a t u t e , however, i s q u i t e c l e a r a s t o the t i t l e conveyed under a tax deed. Section 84-4150, R.C.M. 1947, provides: "The deed issued pursuant t o t h i s a c t s h a l l convey t o the grantee t h e absolute t i t l e t o the lands described therein a s of the date of the expiration of the period of redemp- t i o n , f r e e of a l l encumbrances and c l e a r of any and a l l claims of a l l of said defendants t o said action, and of a l l persons claiming under them, except the l i e n f o r taxes subsequently attached and other l i e n s and assessments now specified and provided by law.'' I f the c r e d i t o r s cannot bring themselves within the exceptions t o section 84-4150, then they must turn t o other a s s e t s of the e s t a t e i n order t o gain s a t i s f a c t i o n of t h e i r claims. Appellant's f i n a l issue i s whether the owner's r i g h t of redemption was cut short by the application f o r the tax deed within seven days a f t e r the r e c e i p t of the t a x c e r t i f i c a t e . H e argues t h a t such application truncated appellant's r i g h t of redemption a s provided f o r i n section q-4132, R.C.M. 1947. That section s t a t e s : "A redemption of the property sold may be made by the owner, o r any party having any i n t e r e s t i n o r l i e n upon such property, within t h i r t y - s i x (36) months from the date of purchase, o r a t any time p r i o r t o the giving of the notice and the application f o r a deed a s provided i n t h i s a c t . 1 1 The s t a t u t e provides a 36 month redemption period from the date of the purchase of the land, and such redemption period may be extended further i f the owner of the tax c e r t i f i c a t e f a i l s t o apply f o r a tax deed a t the end of t h a t 36 month period. I n f a c t , a f t e r t h a t 36 month period the r i g h t of redemption i s cut off only by the application f o r the tax deed. Beckman Bros. v. Weir, 120 Mont. 305, 184 P.2d 347. Here, the land was purchased July 16, 1969 by Lewis and Clark County by tax c e r t i f i c a t e . That i s the day the period of redemption began t o run. Appellant, or any other person who had an i n t e r e s t i n t h e property had 36 months from July 16, 1969, t o redeem the property. The f a c t t h a t respondent bought the tax c e r t i f i c a t e on March 27, 1972, i s immaterial. ~ e s p o n d e n t ' s application f o r a tax deed j u s t seven days a f t e r he gained ownership of the c e r t i f i c a t e i n no way prejudiced appellant's r i g h t of redemption. The redemption period, but f o r approximately three months, had already run i t s course. Appellant made no attempt t o redeem the property, but commenced proceedings t o quiet the t i t l e t o the properties on February 5 , 1973, well a f t e r t h e f i n a l day of redemption. Therefore, appellant l o s t any r i g h t t o the property and the d i s t r i c t court correctly quieted t i t l e i n respondent. The judgment of the d i s t r i c t court i s affirmed. J u s t i c e 1 We Concur: 7 . ' -------------'--------->----------- Chief Justice