Title: KING v ROSEBUD COUNTY

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 80-365 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA LORETTA E. KING, personal representative of the Estate of ROY M. KING, deceased; and LORETTA E. KING et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, ROSEBUD COUNTY, a local government unit in the State of Montana, Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: District Court of the Sixteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Rosebud. Honorable Alfred B. Coate, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants: Olsen, Christensen and Gannett, Billings, Montana Paul G. Olsen argued, Billings, Montana For Respondent: John S. forsythe, County Attorney, Forsyth, Montana Fillner and Pitet, Billings, Montana Russell K . Fillner argued, Billings, Montana Submitted: April 23, 1981 Decided: July 22, 1981 Filed: JOL 2 2 1981 Clerk M r . J u s t i c e Fred J. Weber delivered t h e Opinion of the Court. A p p e l l a n t s / p l a i n t i f f s a r e the personal r e p r e s e n t a t i v e and widow of Roy M. King, and the ex-wife of Roy M. King. They brought t h i s a c t i o n i n Rosebud County, before t h e Honorable Alfred B. Coate, seeking t o q u i e t t i t l e , i n favor of themselves and t h e e s t a t e , t o a r o y a l t y i n t e r e s t of 6 . 2 5 percent i n a l l o i l , gas and minerals recoverable from c e r t a i n t r a c t s of land. Nonjury t r i a l was held on March 11, 1980. The p l a i n t i f f s now appeal from t h e judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t Court i n favor of t h e County. The following i s s u e s a r e presented f o r review: 1. Did the D i s t r i c t Court e r r i n concluding t h a t t h e County took v a l i d t i t l e t o the lands a s a r e s u l t of t a x s a l e proceedings? 2. Did t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r i n concluding t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' a c t i o n i s barred by d o c t r i n e s of estoppel, laches, o r by a s s e r t e d s t a t u t e s of l i m i t a t i o n ? W e hold the D i s t r i c t Court d i d err on both i s s u e s , and reverse the D i s t r i c t Court's judgment. FACTS : This a c t i o n concerns t i t l e t o r o y a l t y i n t e r e s t s i n two t r a c t s of land, a "King" t r a c t and a " S t i l l w e l l " t r a c t . Both were purchased by Roy M. King from t h e County a f t e r t h e County had taken t a x t i t l e t o both. Two o t h e r t r a c t s of land w i l l a l s o be mentioned, a "Bentley" t r a c t and a "LaFurge" t r a c t . King bought those p a r c e l s a t about t h e same t i m e and i n a s i m i l a r manner. The p a r t i e s r e l y f o r a u t h o r i t y upon t h e conduct and outcome of l i t i g a t i o n over t h e Bentley and LaFurge lands. Roy King, Albert S t i l l w e l l , May Bentley and W i l l i a m LaFurge each owned c e r t a i n separate lands i n Rosebud County. ~ l l d e f a u l t e d on payment of taxes. The County purchased a l l of t h e t r a c t s a t t a x s a l e s held i n t h e l a t e 1930's and 1 9 4 0 ' s . The procedure followed by the County i n i s s u i n g t a x deeds t o i t s e l f forms t h e substance of t h i s appeal, and w i l l be described l a t e r . A l b e r t S t i l l w e l l died on May 2 4 , 1937, i n Pennsylvania, before any of t h e events described here occurred. H i s widow served a s e x e c u t r i x of t h e S t i l l w e l l e s t a t e . The p l a i n t i f f s have submitted evidence of t h e S t i l l w e l l probate proceedings held i n Pennsylvania, which the County c i t e s i n support of i t s argument t h a t S t i l l w e l l and h i s h e i r s long ago waived o r abandoned any claim which they might have had t o t h e r o y a l t y i n t e r e s t i n the S t i l l w e l l tract, so t h a t King, who took h i s claimed i n t e r e s t i n t h e S t i l l w e l l t r a c t from S t i l l w e l l ' s h e i r s , must be held t o have acquired no i n t e r e s t i n r o y a l t i e s from t h e S t i l l w e l l s . The County took tax t i t l e t o t h e King tract on September 1, 1939, t o the S t i l l w e l l t r a c t on January 15, 1944, and t o t h e Bentley t r a c t probably some t i m e i n t h e e a r l y 1940's. Roy King l a t e r purchased from t h e County a l l of t h e t r a c t s . H e was issued a quitclaim deed by t h e County t o t h e S t i l l w e l l t r a c t on March 7, 1944. King received a quitclaim deed t o h i s own former t r a c t on September 2 1 , 1944. H e a l s o received quitclaim deeds f o r the Bentley and LaFurge t r a c t s . Each of t h e quitclaim deeds issued t o King contained t h e County's r e s e r v a t i o n of a r o y a l t y i n t e r e s t of 6.25 percent of a l l o i l , gas and minerals recovered and saved from t h e lands. I n order t o conclusively e s t a b l i s h h i s t i t l e t o t h e t r a c t s , King f i l e d an a c t i o n i n Rosebud County i n 1947 t o q u i e t t i t l e t o a l l of t h e t r a c t s and t o o t h e r lands which he had purchased. Named a s defendants, among o t h e r s , were A l b e r t S t i l l w e l l , May Bentley, Rosebud County and William LaFurge. The D i s t r i c t Court f i l e f o r t h e q u i e t t i t l e a c t i o n was introduced i n t o evidence. ( C i v i l Cause No. 5475, i n t h e Sixteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Rosebud County.) Judgment by d e f a u l t was entered a g a i n s t a l l defendants on August 31, 1948, t h e c o u r t decreeing t h a t f u l l and complete t i t l e t o t h e King, S t i l l w e l l , Bentley and LaFurge t r a c t s was quieted i n King. N o mention was made i n the decree of t h e County ' s r e s e r v a t i o n s . The p a r t i e s agree t h a t the County was n o t properly served i n the 1947 a c t i o n . Because t h e D i s t r i c t Court d i d n o t o b t a i n j u r i s d i c t i o n over the County, t h e County i s n o t now bound by the d e f a u l t decree entered a g a i n s t it. That p a r t of t h e decree which quieted t i t l e t o the Bentley t r a c t i n favor of King was l a t e r found void a s a g a i n s t May Bentley by t h e Ninth C i r c u i t Court of Appeals. Bentley v. Rosebud County, Montana (1956), 230 F.2d 1, c e r t . den., 351 U.S. 984, 76 S.Ct. 1051, 100 L.Ed. 1498. The p l a i n t i f f s r e l y on the r a t i o n a l e of t h a t f e d e r a l d e c i s i o n t o support t h e i r claim t h a t t h e county t r e a s u r e r d i d n o t have j u r i s d i c t i o n t o i s s u e t h e t a x deeds t o t h e t r a c t s involved here, claiming t h a t the deeds a r e void and t h e County's sub- sequent r e s e r v a t i o n s i n v a l i d . PERTINENT HISTORY O F THE BENTLEY & L A F U R G E TRACTS O i l was discovered on t h e Bentley tract, probably i n t h e l a t e 1940's o r e a r l y 1950's. May Bentley, a s a r e s i d e n t of Wisconsin, brought an a c t i o n i n f e d e r a l d i s t r i c t c o u r t t o q u i e t t i t l e t o her lands and r o y a l t y i n t e r e s t s . I n Bentley v. Rosebud County, Montana, supra, t h e ~ i n t h C i r c u i t Court of Appeals reversed t h e lower c o u r t , and held t h e t a x s a l e by which t h e County took t i t l e t o the Bentley t r a c t had been f a t a l l y d e f e c t i v e , rendering t h e t a x deed void. Relying on t h e case of Perry v. Maves (1951), 125 Mont. 215, 233 P.2d 820, t h e n i n t h c i r c u i t c o u r t held t h a t a county t r e a s u r e r ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n t o i s s u e t a x deeds r e s t s s o l e l y upon the a f f i d a v i t s of s e r v i c e which are required by s t a t u t e t o be f i l e d with him; and, i n determining t h e s u f f i - ciency of t a x t i t l e proceedings, the record before t h e county t r e a s u r e r alone may be considered, and d e f e c t s o r omissions may n o t be corrected o r supplied by anything o u t s i d e t h e record. The c o u r t found t h a t n e i t h e r t h e n o t i c e of a p p l i c a t i o n f o r tax deed nor t h e a f f i d a v i t and proof of s e r v i c e , which were f i l e d with t h e county t r e a s u r e r , showed whether s e r v i c e on Bentley by publication had been accomplished 60 days p r i o r t o t h e issuance of t h e tax deed t o King. Bentley, 230 F. 2d 4. I n t h e absence of an a f f i r m a t i v e showing t o t h e t r e a s u r e r of compliance with a l l t h e requirements of t h e s t a t u t e s , t h e t a x deed was held t o be void, and t h e subsequent r o y a l t y r e s e r v a t i o n by the County i n i t s quitclaim deed t o King was declared i n v a l i d . Bentley, 230 F.2d 7. While t h e Bentley q u i e t t i t l e a c t i o n was on appeal t o t h e n i n t h c i r c u i t c o u r t , a d i f f e r e n t a c t i o n was brought con- cerning t h e LaFurge t r a c t , which King had purchased from t h e County. The second a c t i o n , LaFurge v. King, brought i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court f o r Rosebud County, i s mentioned only because it generated an exchange of l e t t e r s between t h e then county a t t o r n e y and the lawyer f o r King. The County argues t h a t t h e letters c o n s t i t u t e admissions by King t h a t t h e County's r o y a l t y i n t e r e s t s i n t h e King and S t i l l w e l l t r a c t s a r e v a l i d . Judgment i n t h e LaFurge a c t i o n was entered on A p r i l 15, 1957, a f t e r the Bentley case had been decided by t h e n i n t h c i r c u i t . The judgment recognizes t h e County's reservations. The County relies on the l e t t e r s , a c t i o n s and admissions of King, made i n regard t o t h e Bentley and LaFurge cases, a s support f o r t h e County's defenses of estoppel and laches. W e do n o t set f o r t h t h e a c t s and admissions i n d e t a i l because we hold t h e defenses of estoppel and laches i n a p p l i c a b l e i n any event. P R O C E D U R A L HISTORY O F THIS APPEAL I n March of 1956, Roy King conveyed one-half i n t e r e s t i n a l l minerals i n and under the King and S t i l l w e l l t r a c t s t o h i s ex-wife, C e l i a I. Shock, a s p a r t of a property s e t t l e - ment agreement. Shock i s t h e o t h e r named p l a i n t i f f i n t h i s action. Roy King died i n December 1975. I n November 1975, o i l had been discovered on t h e King and S t i l l w e l l t r a c t s . A l l proceeds due on t h e r o y a l t y i n t e r e s t s i n d i s p u t e have been held i n escrow by the o i l producers pending t h e outcome of t h i s case. On A p r i l 2 , 1976, and again on February 18, 1977, t h e h e i r s of Albert S t i l l w e l l quitclaimed a l l t h e i r r i g h t , t i t l e and i n t e r e s t i n t h e S t i l l w e l l t r a c t t o t h e p l a i n t i f f s . King's widow and h i s ex-wife f i l e d t h e i r q u i e t t i t l e complaint on November 15, 1977. Ultimately t h e County f i l e d an amended answer denying a l l a l l e g a t i o n s of t h e complaint, a l l e g i n g the v a l i d i t y of t h e tax deeds and of t h e r e s e r v a t i o n s of r o y a l t y i n t e r e s t s , and s e t t i n g f o r t h a f f i r m a t i v e defenses of estoppel, laches, and s t a t u t o r y bar t o t h e a c t i o n under former SS93-2503 t o 2505, R.C.M., 1947, now s e c t i o n s 70-19- 304, 70-19-401 and 4 0 2 , MCA, respectively. T r i a l w a s held on March 11, 1980. The only purpose of t h e t r i a l was t o introduce e x h i b i t s i n t o evidence. The District Court then adopted the County's proposed f i n d i n g s and conclusions, concluding t h a t t h e t a x t i t l e pro- ceedings had been v a l i d l y conducted and t h a t t h i s a c t i o n was barred by estoppel, laches and by t h e s t a t u t e s of l i m i t a t i o n . P l a i n t i f f s appeal. TAX SALE PROCEEDINGS King Tract: A 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 and an a f f i d a v i t and proof of s e r v i c e were f i l e d with t h e county t r e a s u r e r pursuant t o s t a t u t e p r i o r t o issuance of t h e t a x deed by t h e t r e a s u r e r t o t h e County. The n o t i c e of a p p l i c a t i o n f o r tax deed s t a t e s , " t h e period within which the . . . above described lands and pre- m i s e s may be redeemed from the s a l e t o pay t h e taxes f o r t h e year 1931 has long s i n c e expired, and . . . t h e . . . [ c l e r k and recorder] w i l l , on t h e 1st day of Sept., 1939, which w i l l be a t l e a s t s i x t y ( 6 0 ) days a f t e r t h e s e r v i c e of t h i s n o t i c e upon you, make a p p l i c a t i o n t o t h e Treasurer of Rosebud County f o r t a x deed t o be issued t o it a s provided by law." I t i s dated June 1 4 , 1939, and i s d i r e c t e d t o King and t o two mortgagees. The a f f i d a v i t and proof of s e r v i c e s t a t e s , i n t e r a l i a , t h a t the c l e r k and recorder served copies of the above- mentioned n o t i c e upon King and t h e mortgagees by mail, and t h a t " t h e r e c e i p t s f o r l e t t e r s , showing d e l i v e r y t h e r e o f , a r e on f i l e i n t h e Office of the County Clerk of Rosebud County, Montana . . . " The a f f i d a v i t a l s o s t a t e s t h a t t h e n o t i c e was published i n t h e l o c a l newspaper f o r two consecutive weeks, " a s i s shown by t h e A f f i d a v i t of Publication which i s on f i l e i n the of £ i c e of t h e County Clerk of Rosebud County, Montana . . ." The a f f i a n t was the a c t i n g county c l e r k ; t h e a f f i d a v i t i s dated August 3, 1939, less than one month p r i o r t o the d a t e on which t h e n o t i c e s t a t e s t h a t a p p l i c a t i o n would be made. A t a x deed f o r t h e King t r a c t was issued t o t h e County on September 1, 1939. Nothing on the f a c e of the record before the t r e a s u r e r shows the d a t e on which n o t i c e was a c t u a l l y given t o King. The t r e a s u r e r could not have known i f n o t i c e had a c t u a l l y been given more than 60 days p r i o r t o the d a t e he issued t h e deed, a s required by t h e s t a t u t e set f o r t h below. S t i l l w e l l Tract: Albert S t i l l w e l l was served by mail i n Pennsylvania. H i s widow signed f o r t h e l e t t e r . The form of t h e 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 and t h e a f f i d a v i t and proof of s e r v i c e , f i l e d with the t r e a s u r e r , a r e i d e n t i c a l t o those regarding the King t r a c t , except t h e af f i d a v i t does n o t s t a t e t h a t the n o t i c e was published. The n o t i c e i s dated October 18, 1943, and t h e a f f i d a v i t January 5, 1 9 4 4 . N o d a t e of mailing the n o t i c e i s s t a t e d , and t h e r e c e i p t f o r the l e t t e r is r e f e r r e d t o a s being f i l e d with t h e county c l e r k . The t a x deed was issued January 15, 1944. Again, the t r e a s u r e r could n o t have known whether timely n o t i c e i n f a c t had been given. DISCUSSION The following s t a t u t e s were a p p l i c a b l e a t t h e t i m e t h e t a x deeds were issued t o t h e County: "Notice of a p p l i c a t i o n --- f o r t a x deed. The purchaser of property sold f o r delinquent taxes . . . must, . . . a t l e a s t s i x t y ( 6 0 ) days before he a p p l i e s f o r a deed, serve upon t h e owner of t h e property purchased, i f known, . . . a w r i t t e n n o t i c e , s t a t i n g t h a t s a i d property, o r a portion t h e r e o f , has been sold f o r delinquent taxes, giving the d a t e of s a l e , t h e amount of property s o l d , t h e amount f o r which it was s o l d , t h e amount due, and t h e time when t h e r i g h t of redemp- t i o n w i l l expire, o r when t h e purchaser w i l l apply f o r a tax deed, and t h e owner of t h e property, . . . has t h e r i g h t of redemption i n d e f i n i t e l y u n t i l such n o t i c e has been given . . . Notice of any owner, . . . s h a l l be given by r e g i s t e r e d l e t t e r addressed t o . . . [ t h e owner] a t t h e p o s t o f f i c e address of s a i d owner . . . I n case of unoccupied property . . . such n o t i c e must be by r e g i s t e r e d mail deposited i n the p o s t o f f i c e , addressed t o any known owner r e s i d - i n g i n o r o u t s i d e of s a i d county with t h e postage thereon prepaid . . . a t l e a s t s i x t y (60) days before the purchaser a p p l i e s for such t a x deed . . . I f 52209, R.C.M., 1935 ( l a t e r c o d i f i e d a s former s e c t i o n 84-4151, R.C.M., 1947, now s e c t i o n 15-18-202, MCA.) " A f f i d a v i t showing n o t i c e given--sum allowed f o r - s e r v i c e of n o t i c e and making a f f i d a v i t . N o deed of t h e property sold a t a d e l m a x sale must be issued by the county t r e a s u r e r . . . t o t h e purchaser of t h e property, u n t i l a f t e r such pur- chaser s h a l l have f i l e d with t h e t r e a s u r e r . . . an a f f i d a v i t showing t h a t t h e n o t i c e hereinbefore required t o be given has been given a s herein required, which s a i d a f f i d a v i t must be f i l e d by t h e t r e a s u r e r a s o t h e r f i l e s , papers, and records k e p t by him i n h i s o f f i c e . . ." 5 2 2 1 2 , R.C.M. 1935 ( l a t e r amended and codified a s former s e c t i o n 84-4156, R.C.M., 1947, now s e c t i o n 15-18-204, MCA.) This Court construed t h e above s t a t u t e s i n Perry v. Maves (1951), 125 Mont. 215, 233 P.2d 820. I n Perry, t h e a f f i d a v i t f i l e d with t h e t r e a s u r e r of McCone County s t a t e d a s follows: "That on Feb. 13, 1940, the . . . [county c l e r k ] f i l e d i n t h e o f f i c e of the County Clerk and Recorder of McCone County, Montana, an A f f i d a v i t and Proof showing t h e manner i n which s a i d Notice of Application f o r Tax Deed was given, a l l a s pro- vided by t h e laws of t h e S t a t e of Montana, t o which A f f i d a v i t and accompanying proofs you a r e hereby r e f e r r e d . " 125 Mont. 217, 233 P.2d 821. This Court held a s follows: "The provisions of s e c t i o n 2212, Revised Codes of Montana 1935, were mandatory and prohibitory. One mandate w a s t h a t an ' a f f i d a v i t must be f i l e d by t h e -- t r e a s u r e r . . . -- i n h i s o f f i c e . ' This mandate p l a i n l y required t h a t an af f i d a v i t must be f i l e d i n t h e county t r e a s u r e r ' s o f f i c e . Another mandate of t h e s t a t u t e was t h a t t h e a f f i d a v i t so f i l e d i n t h e county t r e a s u r e r ' s o f f i c e must show ' t h a t t h e n o t i c e hereinbefore required t o be given has been given a s herein required.' The n o t i c e so required t o be given was t h e n o t i c e expressly provided f o r and required by s e c t i o n 2209, Re- vised Codes of 1935. The provisions of the s t a t u t e ( 2 2 1 2 ) expressly forbade and prohibited the i s s u - ance of a tax deed by the county t r e a s u r e r u n t i l a f t e r t h e above mentioned a f f i d a v i t had been f i l e d i n t h e county t r e a s u r e r ' s o f f i c e . The p r o h i b i t i o n w a s t h a t no deed of t h e property sold a t a d e l i n - quent tax s a l e must be issued by t h e county t r e a - s u r e r t o t h e purchaser of the property u n t i l a f t e r such purchaser s h a l l have f i l e d with t h e t r e a s u r e r an a f f i d a v i t showing t h e required f a c t s . . . Em- p h a s i s supplied." "The a f f i d a v i t provided f o r i n s e c t i o n 2212, supra, must s t a t e t h e e s s e n t i a l f a c t s , a s d i s t i n g u i s h e d from mere conclusions, showing t h a t t h e n o t i c e re- q u i r e d t o be given by s e c t i o n 2209, supra, has been given and u n t i l such a f f i d a v i t was f i l e d i n h i s o f f i c e showing such f a c t s t h e county t r e a s u r e r was -- denied t h e a u t h o r i t y and power t o i s s u e a v a l i d deed t o t h e purchaser of t h e p r o p e r t y s o s o l d a t de- l i n q u e n t t a x s a l e . "Proceedings on t a x s a l e s a r e i n invitum. Every e s s e n t i a l o r m a t e r i a l s t e p p r e s c r i b e d by t h e s t a t u t e must be s t r i c t l y followed. I f t h e requirements of t h e s t a t u t e a r e n o t s t r i c t l y followed t h e s a l e may be avoided. I n t h e county t r e a s u r e r ' s proceedings t o sell t h e land t h e r e i s no d i s t i n c t i o n recognized be- tween t h e mandatory and d i r e c t o r y requirements of t h e s t a t u t e . The county t r e a s u r e r must a c t a s t h e s t a t u t e d i r e c t s . Otherwise he a c t s without a u t h o r i t y and t h e purported s a l e which he assumes t o make i s i n - v a l i d . This holds t r u e even though t h e requirement w i t h which t h e county t r e a s u r e r f a i l e d t o comply was n o t one enacted f o r t h e p r o t e c t i o n of t h e owner of t h e land. " I . . . " I n determining t h e s u f f i c i e n c y of t a x t i t l e proceedings, t h e r e c o r d s alone can be considered and d e f e c t s o r omissions may n o t be c o r r e c t e d o r supplied by anything dehors t h e record." . . . f c i t a t i o n l ' " ' T h i s i s n e c e s s a r i l y so, s i n c e s e c t i o n 2209, a f t e r s p e c i f y i n g how n o t i c e s s h a l l be given, provides a s follows: "The owner of t h e p r o p e r t y . . . has t h e r i g h t of redemption i n d e f i n i t e l y u n t i l such n o t i c e has been given." C e r t a i n l y "such n o t i c e " does n o t mean "some n o t i c e " o r "any n o t i c e , " and n e i t h e r t h e county t r e a s u r e r nor members of t h e j u d i c i a r y may s u b s t i t u t e t h e i r own i d e a s a s t o what n o t i c e should be considered t h e e q u i v a l e n t of o r s u b s t i t u t e f o r t h e n o t i c e r e q u i r e d by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e . ' . . ." Perry, 125 Mont. 216-218, 233 P.2d 820-821. The r e f e r e n c e i n t h e Perry a f f i d a v i t t o documents f i l e d w i t h t h e county c l e r k was held i n s u f f i c i e n t t o confer j u r i s - d i c t i o n upon t h e t r e a s u r e r t o i s s u e a t a x deed. The t a x deed was h e l d void. J u s t a s i n Perry, t h e r e f e r e n c e s i n t h e i n s t a n t a f f i - d a v i t s t o r e c e i p t s f o r t h e mailed n o t i c e s and t o t h e a f f i d a v i t showing p u b l i c a t i o n of t h e King n o t i c e , s t a t e d a s being f i l e d w i t h t h e county c l e r k , w e r e a l s o t o documents o u t s i d e t h e record before t h e t r e a s u r e r . The a f f i d a v i t s f i l e d w i t h t h e t r e a s u r e r must be held i n s u f f i c i e n t t o show proof of s e r v i c e of n o t i c e on King and S t i l l w e l l . Because t h e t r e a s u r e r could n o t know from t h e record whether n o t i c e had been given within the s t a t u t o r y period, he had no a u t h o r i t y t o i s s u e the deed. The County c i t e s Milne v. Leiphart (1946), 119 Mont. 263, 174 P. 2d 805, and C a v i t t v. Seirson (1946), 1 1 9 Mont. 437, 175 P.2d 767, i n support of its argument t h a t t h e a f f i d a v i t s f i l e d with t h e t r e a s u r e r were s u f f i c i e n t t o confer j u r i s d i c t i o n t o i s s u e the t a x deeds. W e agree, however, with t h e n i n t h c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Milne i n Bentley v. Rosebud County, supra, 230 F.2d 4-5. I t i s n o t c l e a r i n Milne whether t h e county t r e a s u r e r had had before him i n t h e record t h e d a t e on which n o t i c e was served. 119 Mont. 269-270, 174 P.2d 808-809. To t h e e x t e n t t h a t Milne c o n f l i c t s with t h e holding here o r i n Perry on t h e question of s u f f i c i e n c y of the a f f i d a v i t , t h e Milne holding i s overruled. C a v i t t , on t h e o t h e r hand, i s d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e on t h e f a c t s . That case d i d n o t concern the question of s u f f i c i e n c y of a p a r t i c u l a r a f f i d a v i t ; r a t h e r , t h e question involved w a s whether any a f f i d a v i t had been f i l e d a t a l l . The c o u r t t h e r e held t h a t a t a x deed gives rise t o s t a t u t o r y pre- sumptions t h a t o f f i c i a l duty has been performed and t h e l a w has been obeyed. The defendant t h e r e f a i l e d t o c a r r y h i s burden of overcoming t h e presumptions by f a i l i n g t o prove t h a t no a f f i d a v i t had been f i l e d . 119 Mont. 440-442, 175 P.2d 769. The p l a i n t i f f s i n t h i s case have shown t h a t t h e f i l e d a f f i d a v i t s w e r e incomplete and t h e r e f o r e d e f e c t i v e , and t h a t t h e tax deeds a r e void f o r lack of j u r i s d i c t i o n i n t h e t r e a s u r e r t o i s s u e them. The p l a i n t i f f s here have overcome the presumptions c i t e d i n ~ a v i t t . The D i s t r i c t Court concluded a s follows: "The t a x t i t l e proceedings conducted by t h e defendant, Rosebud County were v a l i d and s u f f i c i e n t t o d i v e s t Roy M. King and A l b e r t J. S t i l w e l l , and h i s e s t a t e , of any t i t l e i n and t o s a i d l a n d s described i n p l a i n t i f f ' s complaint." Such a conclusion i s c l e a r l y i n c o r r e c t from t h e evidence; t h e judgment based thereon must be reversed. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES The County a s s e r t e d defenses of e s t o p p e l , l a c h e s and s t a t u t e s of l i m i t a t i o n . The e s t o p p e l and l a c h e s d e f e n s e s a r e p r e d i c a t e d mainly upon t h e l a p s e of t i m e between t h e t a x s a l e s and t h e f i l i n g of t h i s a c t i o n . A s s u p p o r t f o r t h e defenses, t h e County relies on t h e a c t s and r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s of King and h i s lawyer i n regard t o t h e Bentley and LaFurge c a s e s p r e v i o u s l y mentioned. The D i s t r i c t Court concluded t h a t King and h i s h e i r s a r e barred by l a c h e s and e s t o p p e l t o deny t h e County's r e s e r v a t i o n . The c o u r t a l s o used waiver/ abandonment type language i n d i s c u s s i n g p l a i n t i f f s ' prede- c e s s o r s ' ( t h e S t i l l w e l l s ' ) acknowledgement and r e c o g n i t i o n of t h e County's i n t e r e s t s . (Conclusion No. 9 ; Conclusion No. 4 W e hold t h a t t h e c o u r t ' s conclusions a r e n o t supported by t h e f i n d i n g s , because one of t h e r e q u i r e d elements of each a s s e r t e d defense i s lacking. Estoppel r e q u i r e s a s one of i t s elements a d e t r i m e n t a l r e l i a n c e on a n o t h e r ' s conduct. Matter of Shaw (1980), Mont. , 615 P.2d 910, 9 1 4 , 37 St.Rep. 1480, 1484. - - There i s no evidence t h a t t h e County has done anything b u t s i t back and w a i t f o r any r o y a l t i e s t h a t might come. stop pel cannot be found where t h e County has i n c u r r e d no d e t r i m e n t , nor changed its p o s i t i o n . The County may l o s e t h e b e n e f i t of t h e r o y a l t y money, b u t it would n o t be i n a worse p o s i t i o n than b e f o r e t h e t a x s a l e s . Laches r e q u i r e s a p a r t y t o s l e e p on h i s r i g h t s f o r such a period a s t o render enforcement i n e q u i t a b l e . Mountain view Cemetery v. Granger (1978), 175 Mont. 351, 358, 574 P.2d 254, 258; Davis v. Steingruber (1957), 131 Mont. 468, 470-471, 311 P. 2d 784, 785. Length of t i m e w i t h i n which r i g h t s a r e n o t a s s e r t e d i s n o t t h e only c o n s i d e r a t i o n . Matter of E s t a t e of Wallace (1980), Mont . 606 P.2d 136, 139- 1-40, 37 St.Rep. 158, 163. R o y a l t i e s have been earned o n l y s i n c e 1975 which does n o t r e s u l t i n a p e r i o d s u f f i c i e n t t o show t h a t enforcement would be i n e q u i t a b l e . The County has i n c u r r e d no d e t r i m e n t by simply w a i t i n g t o see i f any o i l o r minerals a r e produced. The County a l s o a s s e r t e d a s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s defense, based on former 8893-2503, 2504 and 2505, R.C.M., 1947, now s e c t i o n s 70-19-304, 401 and 402, MCA. S e c t i o n 70-19-304, MCA, i s an o l d s e c t i o n . Code anno- t a t i o n s r e v e a l no Montana c a s e s which c o n s t r u e it. However, it i s n o t a p p l i c a b l e h e r e on i t s f a c e , because t h e ten-year p e r i o d s t a r t s t o run only a f t e r a competent c o u r t d e c l a r e s t h e letters p a t e n t o r t h e g r a n t s void. Appellants seek j u s t such a d e c l a r a t i o n i n t h i s case. S e c t i o n 70-19-401 and 402 a r e "adverse possession" s t a t u t e s . The s t a t u t e s a r e a l s o i n a p p l i c a b l e . The r e c o r d d i s c l o s e s no evidence t o show t h a t p l a i n t i f f s , who have e s t a b l i s h e d l e g a l t i t l e , w e r e n o t " s e i z e d o r possessed" of t h e r e a l property. The County has f a i l e d t o overcome t h e presumption t h a t p l a i n t i f f s w e r e i n possession w i t h i n t h e r e q u i r e d period. Former 893-2507, R.C.M., 1947, now s e c t i o n 70-19-404, MCA. Warren v. Warren (1953), 127 Mont. 259, 262, 261 P.2d 364, 365. Even i f p l a i n t i f f s o r t h e i r prede- c e s s o r s w e r e n o t i n a c t u a l possession of t h e p r o p e r t i e s w i t h i n t h e period, they a r e deemed t o have been " s e i z e d " of t h e p r o p e r t i e s based on t h e t i t l e they held. Stephens v. Hurly (1977), 172 Mont. 269, 274-75, 563 P.2d 546, 549-50. The County f a i l e d t o prove t h a t it had fuLfill.ed a l l t h e elements of adverse possession, necessary t o e s t a b l i s h t i t l e i n i t s e l f under t h e above s t a t u t e s . Therefore, t h e s t a t u t e s of l i m i t a t i o n a r e n o t a p p l i c a b l e . The District C o u r t ' s conclusion a s t o s t a t u t o r y b a r i s i n c o r r e c t . W e do n o t d i s c u s s p l a i n t i f f s ' contention t h a t d o c t r i n e s of e s t o p p e l , l a c h e s , and s t a t u t e s of l i m i t a t i o n cannot be used t o g i v e l i f e t o an otherwise void t a x deed because w e f i n d t h e defenses do n o t apply i n any event. CONCLUSION I t i s n o t necessary t o d i s c u s s o t h e r a s s e r t e d i s s u e s . The County's t a x deeds a r e void f o r l a c k of j u r i s d i c t i o n i n t h e t r e a s u r e r t o i s s u e them. Having received nothing under void deeds, t h e County owned nothing from which it could re- s e r v e r o y a l t y i n t e r e s t s . W e have determined t h a t p l a i n t i f f s a r e t h e owners of t h e r o y a l t y i n t e r e s t s i n t h e King and S t i l l w e l l t r a c t s . W e r e v e r s e t h e judgment of t h e District Court and d i r e c t t h e e n t r y of judgment i n accord with t h i s opinion. M s t i c e -C W e concur: Chief J u s t i c e