Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/2d/38/21.html
Timestamp: 2019-06-24 13:29:04
Document Index: 537947658

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 3712', '§ 47', '§ 31948', '§ 31950', '§ 28', '§ 32200', '§ 38', '§ 31965']

Helvey v. Sax :: :: Supreme Court of California Decisions :: California Case Law :: California Law :: US Law :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › California Case Law › Cal. 2d › Volume 38 › Helvey v. Sax
The question arises at the outset whether plaintiff offered sufficient evidence supporting his title to make out a prima facie case to avoid a nonsuit. (See Santens v. Los Angeles Finance Co., 91 Cal. App. 2d 197, 202 [204 P.2d 619]; cases collected in 22 Cal.Jur. 167.)
[1] In a quiet title suit, the plaintiff may recover only upon the strength of his own title and not upon the weakness of defendant's title. (Rockey v. Vieux, 179 Cal. 681 [178 [38 Cal. 2d 24] P. 712]; see 22 Cal.Jur. 167.) [2] A plaintiff relying on a paper title alone must trace his title (1) to the government; or (2) to a grantor in possession at the time of the conveyance to the plaintiff; or (3) to a source common to the chains of title of plaintiff and defendant. (Rockey v. Vieux, supra.)
[3] The state's taxing power is derived from its sovereign authority, not from any grant to it by the owner of property. [4] A property tax operates in rem against the property, and a title granted by a tax deed pursuant to a valid sale of the property for nonpayment of taxes, conveys not merely the title of the person assessed, but a new and complete title under an independent grant from the state. (Rev. & Tax. Code, §§ 3712, 3520; California Loan etc. Co. v. Weis, 118 Cal. 489, 492, 494 [50 P. 697]; Connors v. Jerome, 83 Cal. App. 2d 330 [188 P.2d 770]; see Smith v. Addiego, 54 Cal. App. 2d 230, 237 [129 P.2d 953]; 75 A.L.R. 416; 51 Am.Jur., Taxation, 937.) The statement in Syme v. Warden, 114 Cal. App. 707, 712 [300 P. 863], that a tax deed conveys only such interest as the taxpayer has in the land was unnecessary to the decision therein. It is inconsistent with the foregoing cases and presently controlling statutes and is disapproved. In Dorn v. Baker, 96 Cal. 206, 209 [31 P. 37], the purchaser at the tax sale received only the equitable interest of the assessee in state school land, since the fee owned by the state was not subject to taxation. (People v. Chambers, 37 Cal. 2d 552, 555 [233 P.2d 557]; State Land Settlement Board v. Henderson, 197 Cal. 470, 479 [241 P. 560]; San Pedro etc. R. R. Co. v. Los Angeles, 180 Cal. 18, 22 [179 P. 393].) [5] A purchaser at the tax sale may thus receive a better title than that of the person against whom the taxes were assessed, unless he is the defaulting taxpayer or someone acting in his behalf. (Dowd v. Glenn, 54 Cal. App. 2d 748, 755 [129 P.2d 964].)
It does not follow, however, that an owner out of possession, or persons claiming under him, cannot establish a prima [38 Cal. 2d 25] facie case by tracing title to the assessed owner. [6] The proceedings against the property are the means by which the state obtains its title. If the proceedings are invalid, the assessee retains his interest. If the proceedings are valid, the interest of the assessee is replaced by the state's new and paramount title. The title of the state is thus dependent on the validity of the tax proceedings, just as the interest of an ordinary grantee is dependent on an effective conveyance by his grantor. The assessee's interest is extinguished, because he fails to pay the taxes or redeem the property. [7] The fact that the state acquires the property by virtue of his default rather than by grant makes him no less the source of the state's title and of the title of the purchaser from the state. (Denning v. Green, 88 Cal. App. 379, 381 [263 P. 819]; Denning v. Green, 119 Cal. App. 102, 104 [6 P.2d 317]; Ginaca v. Peterson, 262 F. 904, 907; Godding v. Swanson, 165 Pa.Super. 193 [67 A.2d 814]; Porter v. Carroll, 84 Fla. 62 [92 So. 809].) The assessee and those claiming under him are therefore not barred from attacking the title of the tax sale purchaser.
[8] The principles established by the Revenue and Taxation Code, and the decisions construing it, are applicable to the similar statute involved in the present case. (3 Deering's Gen. Laws, Act 9124, § 47, fn. * now Wat. Code, § 31948; see Dowd v. Glenn, 54 Cal. App. 2d 748 [129 P.2d 964].)
[10] Plaintiff's action against defendant Budrovic is barred by the statute of limitations, which Budrovic pleaded. Section 45.5 of the County Water District Act (now Wat. Code, [38 Cal. 2d 26] §§ 31950, 31952) prevents any action attacking a deed to the district six months after the recordation of the deed, or three months after the effective date of the section (January 30, 1941), whichever is later. The statute applies to tax deeds executed both before and after its enactment. (McCaslin v. Hamblen, 37 Cal. 2d 196 [231 P.2d 1]; Tannhauser v. Adams, 31 Cal. 2d 169, 176 [187 P.2d 716, 5 A.L.R.2d 1015]; Central Valley Equip. Co. v. State, 98 Cal. App. 2d 778 [220 P.2d 811]; Davault v. Essig, 80 Cal. App. 2d 970 [183 P.2d 39].) Since plaintiff commenced this action in 1947, over six years after the effective date of section 45.5, his action is barred.
[12] Plaintiff contends that the taxes are void on the ground that the parcels involved in this action received no benefits by being included in the district. This contention comes too late. The assessed owners through whom plaintiff claims did not avail themselves of their statutory remedy to have their property excluded from the district on the ground that it was not benefited by inclusion therein. (3 Deering's Gen. Laws, Act 9124, § 28, now Wat. Code, § 32200 et seq.; see Hand v. El Dorado Irr. Dist., 97 Cal. App. 740 [276 P. 137]; San Joaquin Agr. Corp. v. Board of Supervisors, 121 Cal. App. 468 [8 P.2d 1051].) Moreover, there is nothing in the evidence to show that plaintiff's predecessors challenged the taxes in the manner provided by the County Water District [38 Cal. 2d 27] Act. There was no attempt to have the tax assessments modified or cancelled, or to set aside the tax deeds to the district. (3 Deering's Gen. Laws, Act 9124, § 38, now Wat. Code, § 31965.) Since plaintiff's predecessors in interest failed to challenge the tax in the manner required by statute, plaintiff is now precluded from making a collateral attack on the tax proceedings. (Wall v. M. & R. Sheep Co., 33 Cal. 2d 768, 772 [205 P.2d 14]; see Reclamation Dist. v. Turner, 104 Cal. 334, 335 [37 P. 1038]; see Dumbarton Land & Imp. Co. v. Murphy, 32 Cal. App. 626, 630 [163 P. 866].)
FN *. "Such deed duly acknowledged or proved is (except as against actual fraud) conclusive evidence of the regularity of all the proceedings from the assessment by the assessor inclusive up to the execution of the deed. The deed conveys to the district the absolute title to the lands described therein, free of all encumbrances, except when the land is owned by the United States or this State in which case it is prima facie evidence of the right of possession."