### No. 81-184 INTHE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATEOF MONTAN

GERALD P. YETTER, Plaintiff andAppellant,

GALLATIN COUNTY;RUTH B. STUCKEY, GallatinCounty Treasurer; LUCILLE BRIDGES, et al., Defendantsand Respondents.

Appeal from: District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Gallatin Honorable W. 

### W. Lessley,Judgepresiding. Counsel of Record: ForAppellant: Allen McAlear argued and Lawrence Swenson argued,

Bozeman, Montana For Respondents: Donald E. White,CountyAttorney, Bozeman, Montana Berg,Coil,Stokes & 

### Tollefsen, Bozeman,Montana Ben E. Berg argued, Bozeman, Montana For Amicus Curiae: HonorableMike Greely,Attorney General,Helena,Montana

Submitted: March 1, 1982 Decided: May 17,1982 Filed: 

## MAY

# 171982Mr. 

### 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, 

### wasgranted summary j

### udgment, and 

### Yetter appeals. The controversy in thiscase 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 1975he leased the ranch and moved toIdaho. His

### forwarding address atthepost officeexpired in 1976. The owner failed topay taxes from 1975through 1978, and on July 19, 1979, Lee McDonald (hereinafter "purchaser") purchased the onemilliondollarranch for$4,085.79 inback taxes. The county treasurer issued thepurchaser an assignment of the tax sale cert-ificateson thatdate. On July 3, 

### 1979, the purchaser mailed a not.ice of application for tax deed totheowner's expiredWest 

### 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 serviceof noticeof application fortax 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, 

### sawthe last.

### public notice in the paper and not-ified theowner. 'The owner went to the county treasurer's office onNovember 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 hisproperty. 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 taxdeed. The property descriptionused by the county treasurer and the tax deed purchaser was an abbreviated description prepared by and forthe 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 noticeof 

### claim of tax 

### title. The sole issue considered is: has thedescriptionof the real property deficient? The description of the real property used in the tax saleproceedings 

### is asfollows: "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

# . Section 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 alsohas failed to

### meet the requirements of section 15-18-403(2), MCA. Several other issueshave 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: