Case Title: ALDEN v JOHNSON

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1975-05-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 12866 I N THE S U P R E M E C O U R T O F THE STATE OF M O N T A N A 1975 ROBERT A. ALDEN, p l a i n t i f f and Appellant, -vs - EDWARD JOHNSON, e t a l e , Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Second J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , on or able John B e McClernan, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant : John Leslie Hamner argued, Butte, Montana For Respondents: Mark P. Sullivan argued, Butte, Montana Submitted: April 7, 1975 Decided : MRY' SY 8 1975 M r . J u s t i c e Frank I. Haswell delivered the Opinion of the Court. This i s an appeal from a summary judgment f o r defendants by t h e d i s t r i c t court, Silver B o w County, t h e Hon. John B. IfcClernan, presiding. The complaint alleged t h a t a t a x deed issued t o defendants Johnson had been improperly granted, and prayed t h a t a t a x deed be issued t o p l a i n t i f f and t i t l e quieted i n him. The d i s t r i c t court had these f a c t s before it. I n 1958, defendants Johnson began paying delinquent taxes on c e r t a i n vacant l o t s adjoining property they occupied i n Butte, Montana. The owner of record of those l o t s was Robert H. Curtis, who was named a defendant i n t h i s action but did not appear. Johnsons received assignments of tax c e r t i f i c a t e s f o r the years 1951 through 1968. I n 1972 they i n i t i a t e d t h e procedures required f o r securing a t a x deed by f i l i n g notice ofapplication f o r t h a t deed. Following t h e s t a t u t o r y waiting period, Johnsons applied f o r and received a tax deed. P l a i n t i f f Robert R. Alden's predecessor i n i n t e r e s t paid the delinquent taxes f o r the years 1969 through 1971 and the c e r t i f i c a t e received therefor was subsequently assigned t o Alden. After Johnson had f i l e d n o t i c e of application f o r a t a x deed, Alden tendered redemption of ~ o h n s o n s ' i n t e r e s t by presenting the appro- p r i a t e sum t o the county treasurer. The treasurer refused t o issue a redemption c e r t i f i c a t e t o Alden and the t a x deed subsequently was issued t o Johnsons. Alden then brought t h i s action and i s now appealing from the adverse ruling i n t h e d i s t r i c t court. A single issue controls t h i s appeal: Does Alden have an i n t e r e s t s u f f i c i e n t t o support h i s quiet t i t l e action? In h i s appellate b r i e f , Alden a s s e r t s : "While it i s recognized by Appellant t h a t he could have pursued a course of mandate a s t o h i s attempted redemption and application f o r tax deed; he has r e l i e d on h i s t i t l e purchased from the Curtis Heirs and t h e Interloqutory [ s i c ] Decree giving him 'color of t i t l e ' i n order t o challange [sic ] ~espondents ' invalid t a x deed based on a defective affidavit.'' Alden's reliance i s misplaced. The t i t l e allegedly purchased from the Curtis h e i r s was transferred on April 24, 1973, approximately two weeks a f t e r t h i s action was f i l e d . This Court i n Brown v, Cartwright, 163 Mont. 139, 515 P.2d 684, 30 St.Rep. 966, 976, held: "* * * t h e f i l i n g of a quiet t i t l e action freezes the respective r i g h t s of the p a r t i e s a t the time of commencement of the action. J ; * JC.~' Thus Alden's position could not be improved by events occurring a f t e r the action was f i l e d . The "interlocutory decree" t o which he r e f e r s i s a default judgment entered against those named defendants who f a i l e d t o answer the complaint o r t o appear i n t h i s action. W e find no authority, and Alden c i t e s none, which holds t h a t t i t l e o r color of t i t l e a r i s e s from a default judgment against a l l persons other than the holder of a t a x deed t o the property i n question. Finally, Alden has not applied f o r nor received a t a x deed i n accordance with the requirements of section 84-4151, R.C.M. 1947. Thus the only i n t e r e s t i n the property which Alden may claim i s t h a t which is conferred by the assignments of tax s a l e c e r t i f i c a t e s . The mere assignment of tax s a l e c e r t i f i c a t e s confers no t i t l e o r color of t i t l e . Diamond Inv. Co. v. Geagan, 154 Mont. 122, 460 P.2d 760; Magelssen v. Atwell, 152 Mont. 409, 451 P.2d 103. The absence of any t i t l e i n t h e p l a i n t i f f is f a t a l t o h i s challenge t o the v a l i d i t y of a tax deed. This Court i n Smith v. Whitney, 105 Mont. 523, 529, 74 P.2d 450, stated: "* * * no person may question the v a l i d i t y of a tax s a l e o r deed unless he can f i r s t show t h a t he, of those under whom he claims, had some t i t l e t o the property a t the time of the sale." The mere possession of an assignment of a t a x s a l e c e r t i f i c a t e i s i n s u f f i c i e n t t o support a quiet t i t l e action. Johnson v. Silver BowCounty, 151 Mont, 283, 443 P.2d 6. Even i f we were t o find some r i g h t i n Alden t o bring t h i s claim, we would be compelled t o decide the merits on the strength of Alden's t i t l e , not on alleged weaknesses i n the ~ o h n s o n s ' . NcAlpin v, Smith, 123 Mont. 391, 213 P.2d 602; Ross v. F i r s t Trust & Savings Bank, 123 Mont. 81, 208 P.2d 490. Alden simply has no t i t l e t o quiet. The principal case r e l i e d upon by Alden i n h i s appeal i s S t a t e ex r e l . Burkhartsmeyer Brothers v. I~cCormick, 162 Mont. 234, 510 P.2d 266, which involved a mandamus action. Our holding there does not consider the controlling i s s u e here involved. Nor w i l l we again discuss the l e g a l considerations sur- rounding the law of summary judgments under Rule 56, M,R.Civ.P. Those considerations have been s e t out i n S t a t e ex rel. City Motor Co., Inc. v. D i s t . Court, M o n t . , 530 P.2d 486, 32 St. Rep. 34. The judgment of the d i s t r i c t court i s affirmed. J u s t i c e W e Concur: Justices. Hon. E. Gardner Brownlee, D i s t r i c t Judge, s i t t i n g f o r Chief J u s t i c e James T. Harrison.