Case Name: HEETHUIS v. KERR
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1914-06-01
Citations: 180 Mich. 520
Docket Number: Docket No. 105
Parties: HEETHUIS v. KERR.
Judges: McAlvay, C. J., and Brooke, Stone, Moore, and Steere, JJ., concurred with Ostrander, J.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 180
Pages: 520–524

Head Matter:
HEETHUIS v. KERR.
1. Taxation — Redemption — Notice — Persons Entitled to be Notified.
The purchaser of a tax interest in real property whose deed, has not been placed on record, is not entitled to notice under the statutory provisions for redemption of Act No. 229, Pub. Acts 1897, as amended by Act No. 142, Pub. Acts 1905 (1 How. Stat. [2d Ed.] §§1911-1914), to cut off his right of redemption from a subsequent purchase of lands delinquent for taxes.
2. Same — Notice to Redeem.
The fact that a purchaser of such tax title served a defective notice on the persons who were entitled to be notified would not entitle the holder of an unrecorded tax deed, who was not in possession of the premises conveyed, to rede.em: he could not complain of any defects in the notice' served on the owners of record.
Bird and Kuhn, JJ., dissenting.
Appeal from Muskegon; Sullivan, J.
Submitted April 21, 1913.
(Docket No. 105.)
Decided June 1, 1914.
Rehearing denied July 25,1914.
Bill by Jacob Heethuis against William F. Kerr, Antha D. Keys and others to quiet title to real property. From a ‘decree for complainant, defendant Keys appeals.
Affirmed.
Cross, Vanderwerp, Foote & Ross, for complainant.
F. E. De Camp (Albert De Camp, of counsel), for defendant Keys.

Opinion:
Ostrander, J.
Complainant has acquired the title of the State to certain premises in tax proceedings. The title which the State held is not, and apparently cannot be, successfully attacked by any one. Complainant undertook to give, and did give, to all per sons entitled thereto, personally or by publication, notice of his having acquired the title and of the sum necessary to be paid to secure a conveyance from him. No one who was entitled to the notice is complaining about it. The appellant, who was not one of the class entitled to notice, who was not in possession of the land, but who asserted an interest in the premises, an interest cut off by the State's title, was made a party defendant by complainant's bill to quiet his title. She compiains that the notice complainant gave was in various respects informal and not in compliance with governing law. The assignments of the failures to comply with the law in giving notice are several and raise various questions besides the one discussed in the opinion of Mr. Justice Bird. I am of opinion that appellant cannot take advantage of any infirmities in the method of giving the notices. The case is not like White v. Shaw, 150 Mich. 270 (114 N. W. 210), in which a cotenant entitled to notice was permitted to assert failure to serve a notice upon his cotenant's executor, who was also entitled to notice. It was held that the tax title owner cannot proceed by piecemeal to cut off the right of redemption of each part owner, and that, until he had served notice upon all who were entitled thereto, the right to redeem continued in all. In the case at bar, as has been pointed out, the appellant was not one of the class entitled to notice, nor a cotenant with any one entitled to notice. If it is held that complainant is unlawfully in possession of the land, must again give notice and accept a sum certain for a reconveyance, appellant may be greatly benefited, and the complainant greatly injured. It appears that appellant's title is evidenced by tax deeds for taxes for the years 1901 and 1902. Complainant acquired the title for taxes for the year 1908. Appellant did not record her deeds. Complainant, since acquiring his title, has paid taxes, has built two houses on the premises, and made other improvements. The ap pellant December 23, 1911, deposited with the register in chancery of Muskegon county $96.21 to obtain a reconveyance from complainant. Of this fact the register notified the complainant. The bill in this cause was filed January 4, 1912. It is therefore apparent that no equitable considerations favor appellant.
The decree will be affirmed.
McAlvay, C. J., and Brooke, Stone, Moore, and Steere, JJ., concurred with Ostrander, J.