Case Name: SANCHEZ et ux. v. JAMES
Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland
Jurisdiction: Maryland
Decision Date: 1956-03-09
Citations: 209 Md. 266
Docket Number: No. 83
Parties: SANCHEZ et ux. v. JAMES
Judges: 
Reporter: Maryland Reports
Volume: 209
Pages: 266–278

Head Matter:
SANCHEZ et ux. v. JAMES
[No. 83,
October Term, 1955.]
Decided March 9, 1956.
The cause was argued before Bruñe, C. J., and Delaplaine, Collins, Henderson and Hammond, JJ.
William B. Bowie for the appellants.
H. Robert Venables and Marion E. West, with whom were West & Venables on the brief, for the appellee.

Opinion:
Delaplaine, J.,
delivered the opinion of the Court.
William V. James, Jr., a resident of the District of Columbia, instituted this proceeding in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County to foreclose all rights of redemption in certain parcels of land which he had purchased from the Treasurer of Prince George's County at a tax sale.
In his bill of complaint on July 14, 1954, he alleged: (1) that he had purchased from the County Treasurer at a public sale on March 2, 1953, lots 22, 23 and 24 in block 4 in the subdivision known as Maryland Park for the sum of $70; (2) that the owners of the lots, Victor Sanchez and Sinforosa Sanchez, his wife, were, to the best of his knowledge, last reported residing at 2011 Columbia Road, N. W., Washington, D. C.; and (3) that, although more than a year and a day had elapsed since the lots were sold, they had not been redeemed.
Two subpoenas were issued for Sanchez and his wife, defendants. Both subpoenas were return non est. Notice by publication was also given warning defendants and all persons having or claiming to have any interest in the lots to appear on or before September 24, 1954, to answer the bill or redeem the lots.
On October 19, 1954, the Court entered a decree pro confesso against defendants and all persons having or claiming to have any interest in the lots.
On November 22, 1954, the Court entered a final decree declaring complainant to be vested with an absolute and indefeasible title in fee simple to the lots, and directing the County Treasurer to execute a deed to complainant upon payment of the balance of the purchase price and all taxes thereon accruing subsequent to the date of the sale.
On March 17, 1955, defendants filed a petition praying the Court (1) to set aside the final decree, (2) to annul the County Treasurer's deed conveying the lots to complainant, and (3) to fix the amount necessary for redemption of the lots. They alleged that both subpoenas were directed to them at 2011 Columbia Road, N. W., Washington, D. C., which was the address noted on the land records of Prince George's County; but that they had not resided there for 12 years, and consequently both subpoenas were returned non est. They further alleged that the assessment records in the County Treasurer's office gave as their address 6600 Central Avenue (Prince George's County, Maryland) post office address Washington, D. C.; and that they had been residing there for the past four years. They thereupon claimed that the sheriff made no actual attempt to obtain service upon them at their residence, and hence the final decree should be set aside on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
On June 3, 1955, the chancellor passed an order dismissing defendants' petition. From that order defendants appealed to this Court.
The law is established that tax foreclosure proceedings are in rem and not in personam. Thus the Legislature may validly provide that persons having an interest in real property sold at a tax sale shall be given notice by publication, and that personal service of process in such proceedings is unnecessary. Gathwright v. City of Baltimore, 181 Md. 362, 30 A. 2d 252, 145 A. L. R. 590. Of course, where the statute requires personal service of notice of a tax foreclosure proceeding, notice by publication is ineffective. Smith v. Huber, 224 Iowa 817, 277 N. W. 557, 115 A. L. R. 131. But, as held by the United States Supreme Court in Leigh v. Green, 193 U. S. 79, 24 S. Ct. 390, 393, 48 L. Ed. 623, due process of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States is not denied the owner of real estate by the lack of any provision for personal service on him of notice of the pendency of a proceeding in rem authorized by statute to enforce the lien acquired by a purchaser of the property at a tax sale, where notice is given by publication to all persons interested in the property to appear and set up their claims. In that case Justice Day, delivering the opinion of the Court, pointed out that tax foreclosure proceedings are not actually proceedings against parties, but the statute undertakes to proceed in rem by making the real estate answer for the public dues, and the primary object of the statute is to reach the real estate which has been assessed.
The Maryland Tax Sale Act, Code 1951, art. 81, sec. 104, provides that upon the filing of the bill of complaint, the Court shall issue a subpoena for all defendants named in the bill who are residents of this State. The subpoena shall warn all defendants to appear on or before a cer tain day to answer the bill or to redeem the property, and shall contain a statement that in case of failure to do so a final decree will be rendered foreclosing all rights of redemption in the property. Where two successive subpoenas against a defendant have been returned non est, or upon the return of one subpoena non est and proof by affidavit that a defendant has kept out of the way or has secreted himself to avoid service of the subpoena, or whose whereabout may be unknown, such defendant shall be deemed to be served by the publication as if he were a nonresident.
Section 105 provides that at the time the subpoena is issued, the Court shall order the issuance of an order of publication directed to all defendants, known and unknown, naming the known defendants and including the unknown defendants and all other persons having an interest in the property. This section declares: "When such order of publication shall have been issued and published as aforesaid, all persons having any right, title, interest, claim, lien or equity of redemption in the property shall be bound by the decree of the court which may be passed in the case as if they were personally served with process."
Section 110 provides that at the expiration of the time limited in the order of publication and in the subpoena, the Court shall pass a decree in accordance with the general equity jurisdiction and practice of the Court. The decree shall be final and conclusive, and all defendants shall be bound by the decree as if they had been named in the proceedings and personally served with process. If the Court shall find for the plaintiff, the decree shall vest in the plaintiff an absolute and indefeasible title in fee simple to the property.
Section 111 provides: "No application shall be thereafter entertained to reopen any final decree rendered under the provisions of this sub-title except on the ground of lack of jurisdiction or fraud in the conduct of the proceedings to foreclose. "
In James v. Zantzinger, 202 Md. 109, 96 A. 2d 10, where • the Circuit Court for Prince George's County struck out a decree of foreclosure, it appeared that two subpoenas had been issued for Richard R. Jacoby, the owner of the land. The first subpoena was directed to Richard R. Jacoby, R. F. D., Bowie, Maryland. The second was directed to Richard R. Jacoby, R. F. D., Bowie. Both subpoenas were returned non est. The Circuit Court held that the subpoenas were fatally defective for two reasons: (1) because Jacoby did not reside at Bowie or anywhere else in Prince George's County, but prior to the institution of the suit he had moved to Anne Arundel County; and that James, the purchaser at the tax sale, could easily have obtained the correct address, and then the sheriff of Anne Arundel County could have served a subpoena there; and (2) because the address on the second subpoena, "R. F. D., Bowie," was ambiguous. The Court of Appeals, reversing the order striking out the decree of foreclosure, held that since both subpoenas contained Jacoby's last known address, and since the omission of the word "Maryland" from the address on the second subpoena could not have misled the sheriff, the Circuit Court had jurisdiction and the decree of foreclosure was valid.
In the case before us the two subpoenas were directed to Sanchez and wife, defendants, at 2011 Columbia Road, N. W., Washington, D. C., although their actual residence was in Prince George's County and their post office address was 6600 Central Avenue, Washington, D. C. Defendants made no contention that complainant attempted to perpetrate actual fraud in the conduct of the proceedings to foreclose. They contended merely that complainant's attorney, who prepared the bill of complaint, was familiar with the records in the courthouse at Upper Marlboro and that it was "his oversight which caused him to overlook the address in the tax records." They claimed that the Circuit Court did not have jurisdiction because they had moved away from the Columbia Road address prior to the institution of the suit.
However, there was no allegation or proof that complainant furnished the former address for the purpose of fraud or deception. As a matter of fact, complainant's attorney obtained the address from the margin of the record of defendants' deed, which was filed in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court in January, 1941. Complainant's attorney also looked in the assessment book in the office of the County Treasurer, but there was no address opposite the description of the property in controversy, although the address did appear opposite the description of property two items above. It is our conclusion that there was no fraud in the conduct of the proceedings, and defendants failed to show that the Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction. In compliance with Section 104 of the Tax Sale Act, the Court issued two subpoenas for the defendants named in the bill, who are residents of the State, and both subpoenas were returned non est. In addition, in compliance with Section 105, notice by publication was given warning defendants and all persons having or claiming to have an interest in the property to answer the bill or to redeem the property.
As the decree of the Court below vesting absolute and indefeasible title to the lots in complainant was not obtained by fraud, and the Court had jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter, we will affirm the order dismissing the petition.
Order affirmed, with costs.