Title: BURKHARTSMEYER BROTHERS v MCCORMIC
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 12355
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: May 18, 1973

No. 12355 I N THE SUPRME C O U R T O F T H E STATE O F MONTANA 1973 T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A , ex r e 1 BURKHARTS- MEYER BROTHERS, et a l . , Relator and Respondent, ELIZAEETH McCORMICK , TREASURER O F HILL COUNTY, M O N T A N A , Respondent and Appellant, ------_------------------*------------------ NORA C. NELSON, Intervenor. Appeal from: District Court of t h e Twelfth J u d i c i a l District, Honorable Bernard W. Thomas, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant : Ronald W. Smith argued, County Attorney, Havre, Montana. For Respondent : Weber, Bosch, Kuhr, Dugdale and Warner, Havre, Montana. John Warner argued, Havre, Montana. Hauge, Hauge, Ober, Spangelo and Thompson, Havre, Montana. Theodore K. Thompson argued, Havre, Montana, Submitted: A p r i l 24, 1973 Decided : MAY 'I 8 1973 Filed : MAY 1 8 1973 M r . Justice Frank I. Haswell delivered the Opinion o f the Court. I n the d i s t r i c t court o f H i l l County, Hon. Bernard W. Thomas, d i s t r i c t judge, s i t t i n g without a jury, r e l a t o r was granted a w r i t o f mandate compelling the county treasurer t o accept i t s attempted redemption o f delinquent tax sale c e r t i f i c a t e s . The county treasurer appeals from t h a t judgment. Relator i s Burkhartsmeyer Brothers, a ranching copartnership which has occupied the land i n question f o r purposes o f grazing c a t t l e since 1952. Appellant i s El izabeth McCormick, county treasurer o f Hi1 1 County, Montana, who i s sued i n her o f f i c i a l capacity only. Intervenor i s Nora C. Nelson, an assignee o f delinquent sale c e r t i f i c a t e s on the subject land, who also happens t o be H i l l County auditor. The subject o f the delinquent tax sale c e r t i f i c a t e s involves a quarter section o f land i n H i l l County. The owner o f the property i s Ruth Hubbard. Relator owns the land surrounding the property i n dispute. On October 15, 1958, George H. Campbell purchased from the treasurer o f H i l l County an assignment o f tax sale c e r t i f i c a t e s covering taxes f o r the years 1954, 1956, 1957 and 1958. On March 20, 1963, the same George H. Camp- b e l l purchased from the H i l l County treasurer an assignment o f tax sale c e r t i f - icates covering taxes f o r the year 1959 and p a r t o f 1961. Again, on J u l y 6, 1967, he purchased from the H i l l County treasurer an assignment o f tax sale c e r t i f i c a t e s covering taxes f o r the years 1963, 1964, 1965 and 1966. Sub- sequently, on March 24, 1972, the aforementioned c e r t i f i c a t e s were purchased from Campbell by r e l a t o r f o r $1,000. O n November 30, 1971 , intervenor purchased tax sale c e r t i f i c a t e s covering del inquent taxes f o r the years 1967, 1968, 1969 and 1970. Also, on the same day, intervenor paid 1971 taxes on t h e land. O n January 27, 1972, intervenor gave notice t o the required p a r t i e s t h a t she had made such purchases and paid such taxes pursuant t o section 84-4151, R.C.M. 1947. Notice was also given t h a t unless redemption was made p r i o r t o March 29, 1972, intervenor would apply f o r a tax deed covering the property. A copy o f said notice was received by relator. The d i s t r i c t court found that on March 27, 1972 relator tendered to the county treasurer a sum of money sufficient to redeem the taxes represent- ed by the assignment of tax sale certificates held by intervenor, together with a l l subsequent taxes, interest, penal t i e s and fees required by law. The county treasurer refused to accept such tender. Later this same day, relator applied to the d i s t r i c t court for an alternative writ of mandate. The writ was granted and served upon the county treasurer on the same day, compelling her to take a l l steps necessary to effectuate relator's attempted redemption or alternatively to show cause why she had not done so. On the following day intervenor tendered her persona1 check to the county treasurer to effect a redemption of relator's tax sale certificates. The check was accepted by the county treasurer. Later the same day the show cause hearing was held. On M a y 31, 1972, the d i s t r i c t court entered findings of fact, con- clusions of law and judgment ordering that a peremptory writ of mandate be issued compelling relator's attempted redemption and further ordered that the county treasurer pay relator the s u m of $250 for i t s attorney's fee. The county treasurer appeals from this judgment. T w o issues are presented upon this appeal : (1 ) Whether relator's demand for a writ o f mandate must fail because i t has a plain, adequate and speedy remedy a t law, and ( 2 ) whether relator, as the holder of prior tax sale certificates has the right to redeem subsequent tax sale certificates held by intervenor. A s a general rule, a writ of mandate i s to be issued only when there is no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Section 93-9103, R.C.M. 1947; Sullivan v. Treasurer of Silver B o w County, 140 Mont. 609, 370 P.2d 762. Appellant and intervenor contend that i f relator had acted i m - mediately after i t received notice of intervenor's appl ication for tax deed the following alternative remedies were available: (1) a quiet t i t l e action, (2) declaratory judgment, or (3) an injunction pursuant to sections 93-4201 and 93-4202(3), R.C.M. 1947. Although appellant has listed several alternative remedies i t must be noted that the mere existence of another remedy will n o t bar the issu- ance of a writ of mandate; the alternative remedy must be one that itself enforces the performance of the particular duty ,and not merely a remedy which i n the end saves the party to w h o m the duty is owed unharmed by i t s nonper- formance. State v . McCracken, 91 Mont. 157, 6 P.2d 869. In light of the facts in this case only a writ of mandate can give complete relief. I t was essential that relator be granted immediate relief which would compel the appel lant-treasurer to accept its money to redeem intervenor's tax certificates. If this was not done immediately intervenor could turn the tables on relator by redemption of relator's tax sale certif- icates, which in fact was done the very next day; or i f the delay was ex- tended for two days intervenor would apply for a tax deed cutting off rela- t o r ' s right of redemption. Any remedy other than by writ of mandate would be uncertain, and neither plain, adequate or speedy. Mandamus i s a proper remedy here to compel the appellant, Hill County treasurer, t o compute the tax owed and accept relator's tender of money t o redeem tax sale certificates owned by intervenor. State ex r e l . Federal Land Bk. v. Hays, 86 Mont. 58, 282 P. 32. Appellant also raises the issue of laches. Relator's delay of 58 days after receipt of notice, a1 though two days before the statutory period would have expired (section 84-41 51 , R.C .M. 1947), was not unreasonably 1 ong. Furthermore, the delay caused no detriment to the opposing parties. Directing our attention to the second issue for review w e note that as the holder of a tax sale certificate, relator claims a lien under section 84-4130, R.C.M. 1947; and as a .lienholder i t claims the right t o redeem under section 84-4132, R.C.M. 1947. Section 84-4132, R.C.M. 1947, states: "A redemption of the property sold may be made by the owner, or any party having any i n t e r G t i n or lien upon such property, w i t h i n thirty-six (36) months from the date of purchase, or a t any time prior to the giv- ing of the notice and the application for a deed as provided i n this act. " (Emphasis supplied .) Appellant and intervenor, on the other hand, claim that relator i s not entitled to redeem. They contend that section 84-4151, R.C.M. 1947, only permits the "owner of the property, or the mortgagee, or the assignee of said mortgagee * * * the right of redemption indefinitely until such notice has been given and the deed applied for * * *." (Emphasis suppl ied. ) In determining who has the right of redemption i t i s not necessary to look to section 84-4151, R.C.M. 1947. That section of the Code i s pri- mari ly a "notice" statute relating to procedural requirements requisite to obtaining a tax deed. Relator's right to redemption flows from the fact and that i t i s the occupier of the land/ the assignee of a tax sale certificate. As the holder of such certificate i t has a lien in accord with section 84- 4130, R.C.M. 1947, and as a party having a lien upon such property i t can certificate redeem a subsequent tax sale/3t any time before application i s made for the tax deed. Section 84-4132, R.C.M. 1947. For these reasons the judgment of the d i s t r i c t court i s affirmed. Associate Justice Associate Justices /