No. 81-184 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTAN 

GERALD P. YETTER, 

Plaintiff and Appellant, 

GALLATIN COUNTY; RUTH B. STUCKEY, 

Gallatin County Treasurer; LUCILLE 

BRIDGES, et al., 

Defendants and Respondents. 

Appeal from: District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Gallatin 

Honorable W. W. Lessley, Judge presiding. 

Counsel of Record: 

For Appellant: 

Allen McAlear argued and Lawrence Swenson argued, 

Bozeman, Montana 

For Respondents: 

Donald E. White, County Attorney, Bozeman, Montana 

Berg, Coil, Stokes & Tollefsen, Bozeman, Montana 

Ben E. Berg argued, Bozeman, Montana 

For Amicus Curiae: 

Honorable Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana 

Submitted: March 1, 1982 

Decided: May 17, 1982 

Filed: MAY 17 1982 
Mr. Justice John Conway Harrison delivered the Opinion of 

the Court. 

Gerald Yetter filed an action in the Eighteenth 

Judicial District., in and for Gallatin County, to annul a 

tax deed. Lee McDonald, the tax deed purchaser, was granted 

summary j udgment, and Yetter appeals. 

The controversy in this case centers around the 400- 

acre Great Springs Ranch located on the edge of Lake Hebgen. 

Gerald Yetter (hereinafter "owner" ) has owned t-he ranch 

since 1960. In 1975 he leased the ranch and moved to Idaho. 

His forwarding address at the post office expired in 1976. 

The owner failed to pay taxes from 1975 through 1978, 

and on July 19, 1979, Lee McDonald (hereinafter "purchaser") 

purchased the one million dollar ranch for $4,085.79 in back 

taxes. The county treasurer issued the purchaser an assignment of the tax sale cert-ificates on that date. 

On July 3, 1979, the purchaser mailed a not.ice of 

application for tax deed to the owner's expired West Yellowstone post office box. The same notice was published for 

two weeks commencing August 14, 1979. 

A tax deed was issued by the county treasurer on 

October 15, 1979, based on the purchaser's affidavit of 

service of notice of application for tax deed. 

A claim of tax title was published by the purchaser 

on October 17 and 24, 1979, pursuant to section 15-18-403, 

MCH. 

In the inst~ant case the owner had no notice whatsoever that his ranch was being sold for taxes. A friend, 

however, saw the last. public notice in the paper and not-ified the owner. 

'The owner went to the county treasurer's office on 
November 15 or 16 to redeem his property. 'The countytreasurer had to calculate the total amount due and could 

not do it that day. Therefore, the owner gave the county 

treasurer a blank check, good for a sum not to exceed 

$5,000, and asked the treasurer to complete it for the 

amount necessary to redeem his property. 

The owner's checking account contained $4,442.18. 

'The dctual amount due was approximately $4,270. However, 

the county treasurer included taxes due on other lands that 

the owner had sold, which brought the tax total to 

$4,885.63. Thus, the owner's account had insufficient funds 

to cover the check, and the period for redemption expired. 

'The owner then deposited $4,300 with the court and filed 

suit to annul the tax deed. 

The property description used by the county treasurer 

and the tax deed purchaser was an abbreviated description 

prepared by and for the use of the county tax assessor. The 

description does not indicate in which portion of a large 

tract of land the ranch is located. Yet, this description 

was used in the county treasurer's records, the treasurer's 

certificates of tax sale, the treasurer ' s assignment of 

duplicate certificates of tax sale to the purchaser, purchaser's not-ice of application for the tax deed and his 

affidavit of notice of application for tax deed, the tax 

deed itself, and the notice of claim of tax title. 

The sole issue considered is: has the description of 

the real property deficient? 

The description of the real property used in the tax 

sale proceedings is as follows: 

"Pt.. SE4 less 1.2A tr. in N2SE4 and tr. in 

S2SW4NE4 - Sec. 12, Twp 12S, Rge 4E. 
"W2SE4, Pt. SW4 less 9.79A and SW4LVW4, LW~SW~ 

less R-W and tr. H subject to flood rights - 

Sec. 7, Twp 12S, Rge 5E. 

"NW4NE4, NE4SE4Nv74 with 9.624 also assessed to 

Montana Power under flood rights - Sec. 18, 

'fwp 12S, Rge 5E." 

The description in the instant case is too vague to 

adequately identify the land in question, and therefore, the 

description is fatally defective. See, Miller v. ivIurphy 

(1946), 119 Mont. 393, 175 P.2d 182; Mary M. Miller & Sons 

v. Daniels (1907), 47 Wash. 411, 92 P. 268. Cf ., Komadina 

v. Edmondson (1970), 81 N.M. 467, 468 P.2d 632. 

The notice of publication under section 15-18-403, 

MCA, was deficient . Sect ion 15-18-403 (2), MCA, provides 

that the published "fiotice of claim of a tax title" shall 

set forth a description of any property claimed. As noted 

above, the property description used is void for vagueness. 

Thus, the purchaser also has failed to meet the requirements 

of section 15-18-403(2), MCA. 

Several other issues have been raised in this appeal, 

including the const.itutionality of section 15-18-403, iVICA. 

However, the t.ax deed is void, so we need not reach t.he 

remaining issues. 

Reversed and remanded. The Dist.rict Court shall 

cancel the tax deed. 
Ne concur: