Title: YETTER v GALLATIN CO
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 81-184
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: May 17, 1982

No. 81-184 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTAN GERALD P. YETTER, Plaintiff and Appellant, GALLATIN COUNTY; RUTH B. STUCKEY, Gallatin County Treasurer; LUCILLE BRIDGES, et al., Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Gallatin Honorable W. W. Lessley, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Allen McAlear argued and Lawrence Swenson argued, Bozeman, Montana For Respondents: Donald E. White, County Attorney, Bozeman, Montana Berg, Coil, Stokes & Tollefsen, Bozeman, Montana Ben E. Berg argued, Bozeman, Montana For Amicus Curiae: Honorable Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Submitted: March 1, 1982 Decided: May 17, 1982 Filed: MAY 17 1982 M r . J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e Court. Gerald Y e t t e r f i l e d an a c t i o n i n t h e E i g h t e e n t h J u d i c i a l District., i n and f o r G a l l a t i n County, t o a n n u l a t a x deed. Lee McDonald, t h e t a x deed p u r c h a s e r , w a s g r a n t e d summary j udgment, and Yetter a p p e a l s . The c o n t r o v e r s y i n t h i s c a s e c e n t e r s around t h e 400- a c r e Great S p r i n g s Ranch l o c a t e d on t h e edge of Lake Hebgen. Gerald Yetter ( h e r e i n a f t e r "owner" ) h a s owned t-he ranch s i n c e 1960. I n 1975 he l e a s e d t h e ranch and moved t o Idaho. H i s forwarding a d d r e s s a t t h e p o s t o f f i c e e x p i r e d i n 1976. The owner f a i l e d t o pay t a x e s from 1975 through 1978, and on J u l y 19, 1979, Lee McDonald ( h e r e i n a f t e r " p u r c h a s e r " ) purchased t h e one m i l l i o n d o l l a r ranch f o r $4,085.79 i n back t a x e s . The county t r e a s u r e r i s s u e d t h e p u r c h a s e r an a s s i g n - ment of t h e t a x sale c e r t - i f i c a t e s on t h a t d a t e . On J u l y 3 , 1979, t h e p u r c h a s e r mailed a not.ice o f a p p l i c a t i o n f o r t a x deed t o t h e o w n e r ' s e x p i r e d West Yellow- s t o n e p o s t o f f i c e box. The same n o t i c e was p u b l i s h e d f o r two weeks commencing August 1 4 , 1979. A t a x deed was i s s u e d by t h e c o u n t y t r e a s u r e r on October 15, 1979, based on t h e p u r c h a s e r ' s a f f i d a v i t o f s e r v i c e of n o t i c e of a p p l i c a t i o n f o r t a x deed. A claim of t a x t i t l e was p u b l i s h e d by t h e p u r c h a s e r on October 17 and 2 4 , 1979, p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 15-18-403, MCH. I n t h e i n s t ~ a n t case t h e owner had no n o t i c e whatso- e v e r t h a t h i s ranch w a s being s o l d f o r t a x e s . A f r i e n d , however, s a w t h e last. p u b l i c n o t i c e i n t h e paper and not-i- f i e d t h e owner. 'The owner went t o t h e county t r e a s u r e r ' s o f f i c e on November 15 o r 1 6 to redeem h i s p r o p e r t y . 'The county- t r e a s u r e r had t o c a l c u l a t e t h e t o t a l amount d u e and c o u l d n o t d o it t h a t d a y . T h e r e f o r e , t h e owner g a v e t h e c o u n t y t r e a s u r e r a b l a n k c h e c k , good f o r a sum n o t t o e x c e e d $ 5 , 0 0 0 , and a s k e d t h e t r e a s u r e r t o c o m p l e t e it f o r t h e amount n e c e s s a r y to redeem h i s p r o p e r t y . The o w n e r ' s c h e c k i n g a c c o u n t c o n t a i n e d $4,442.18. 'The d c t u a l amount d u e was a p p r o x i m a t e l y $4,270. However, t h e c o u n t y t r e a s u r e r i n c l u d e d t a x e s d u e o n o t h e r l a n d s t h a t t h e o w n e r h a d s o l d , w h i c h b r o u g h t t h e t a x t o t a l t o $4,885.63. Thus, t h e o w n e r ' s a c c o u n t had i n s u f f i c i e n t f u n d s to c o v e r t h e c h e c k , and t h e p e r i o d f o r r e d e m p t i o n e x p i r e d . 'The owner t h e n d e p o s i t e d $4,300 w i t h t h e c o u r t and f i l e d s u i t to a n n u l t h e t a x d e e d . The p r o p e r t y d e s c r i p t i o n used by t h e c o u n t y t r e a s u r e r and t h e t a x deed p u r c h a s e r was a n a b b r e v i a t e d d e s c r i p t i o n p r e p a r e d by and f o r t h e u s e o f t h e c o u n t y t a x a s s e s s o r . The d e s c r i p t i o n d o e s n o t i n d i c a t e i n which p o r t i o n o f a l a r g e t r a c t o f l a n d t h e r a n c h is l o c a t e d . Y e t , t h i s d e s c r i p t i o n was used i n t h e c o u n t y t r e a s u r e r ' s r e c o r d s , t h e t r e a s u r e r ' s c e r t i f i c a t e s o f t a x s a l e , t h e t r e a s u r e r ' s a s s i g n m e n t o f d u p l i c a t e c e r t i f i c a t e s o f t a x s a l e t o t h e p u r c h a s e r , p u r - c h a s e r ' s n o t - i c e o f a p p l i c a t i o n f o r t h e t a x deed and h i s a f f i d a v i t o f n o t i c e o f a p p l i c a t i o n f o r t a x d e e d , t h e t a x d e e d i t s e l f , and t h e n o t i c e o f claim o f t a x t i t l e . The s o l e i s s u e c o n s i d e r e d is: has t h e d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e real p r o p e r t y d e f i c i e n t ? The d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e r e a l p r o p e r t y used i n t h e t a x s a l e p r o c e e d i n g s is a s f o l l o w s : "Pt.. SE4 less 1.2A t r . i n N2SE4 and t r . i n S2SW4NE4 - S e c . 1 2 , Twp 12S, Rge 4E. "W2SE4, P t . SW4 less 9.79A and S W 4 L V W 4 , L W ~ S W ~ less R-W and tr. H s u b j e c t t o f l o o d r i g h t s - Sec. 7, Twp 12S, Rge 5E. "NW4NE4, NE4SE4Nv74 w i t h 9.624 a l s o a s s e s s e d t o Montana Power under f l o o d r i g h t s - S e c . 1 8 , 'fwp 12S, Rge 5E." The d e s c r i p t i o n i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e is t o o vague to a d e q u a t e l y i d e n t i f y t h e l a n d i n q u e s t i o n , and t h e r e f o r e , t h e d e s c r i p t i o n is f a t a l l y d e f e c t i v e . S e e , M i l l e r v. ivIurphy ( 1 9 4 6 ) , 119 Mont. 393, 175 P.2d 182; Mary M. Miller & Sons v. D a n i e l s ( 1 9 0 7 ) , 47 Wash. 411, 92 P. 268. Cf ., Komadina v. Edmondson ( 1 9 7 0 ) , 8 1 N.M. 467, 468 P.2d 632. The n o t i c e o f p u b l i c a t i o n under s e c t i o n 15-18-403, MCA, was d e f i c i e n t . S e c t ion 15-18-403 ( 2 ) , MCA, p r o v i d e s t h a t t h e p u b l i s h e d "fiotice o f c l a i m o f a t a x t i t l e " s h a l l set f o r t h a d e s c r i p t i o n o f any p r o p e r t y claimed. A s n o t e d above, t h e p r o p e r t y d e s c r i p t i o n used is v o i d f o r v a g u e n e s s . Thus, t h e p u r c h a s e r a l s o h a s f a i l e d t o meet t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f s e c t i o n 15-18-403(2), MCA. S e v e r a l o t h e r i s s u e s have been r a i s e d i n t h i s a p p e a l , i n c l u d i n g t h e c o n s t . i t u t i o n a l i t y o f s e c t i o n 15-18-403, iVICA. However, t h e t.ax deed is v o i d , s o w e need n o t r e a c h t.he remaining i s s u e s . Reversed and remanded. The D i s t . r i c t C o u r t s h a l l c a n c e l t h e t a x deed. Ne concur: