CO Code § 39-11-135 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 39 - Taxation|Article 11 - Sale of Tax Liens|§ 39-11-135. Form of Tax Deed

 [Form Excluded]   History. Source: L. 64: R&RE, p. 734, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 137-11-35. L. 69: P. 1124, § 1. L. 85: Entire section amended, p. 1241, § 23, effective July 1. L. 92: Entire section amended, p. 2232, § 23, effective April 9. History. Source: L. 64: R&RE, p. 734, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 137-11-35. L. 69: P. 1124, § 1. L. 85: Entire section amended, p. 1241, § 23, effective July 1. L. 92: Entire section amended, p. 2232, § 23, effective April 9.    ANNOTATION   Analysis     I. GENERAL CONSIDERATION.    II. NECESSARY RECITALS IN DEED.    III. DEFECTS VOIDING DEEDON ITS FACE.    IV. DEED CONVEYINGSEVERAL TRACTS.     I. GENERAL CONSIDERATION.   Law reviews. For note, “Tax Deeds in Colorado”, see 18 Rocky Mt. L. Rev. 393 (1946).   Annotator's note. The following annotations include cases decided under this section as it existed prior to its 1964 repeal and reenactment.   General assembly has the authority to prescribe a tax deed's form and requisites. Sayre v. Sage, 47 Colo. 559 , 108 P. 160 (1910); Minter v. King, 27 Colo. App. 233, 148 P. 275 (1915).   Treasurer must comply with statutory provisions. A treasurer, in executing deeds, acts under a naked statutory power, and he must comply substantially with the applicable statutory provisions. The form of a treasurer's deed is a special one, and it will not be assumed that the general assembly intended to modify it in any way by subsequent statute, unless the intention to do so clearly appears. Colpitts v. Fastenau, 117 Colo. 594 , 192 P.2d 524 (1948).   Treasurer's affidavit prerequisite to valid tax deed. An affidavit of the treasurer, in substantial compliance with § 39-11-103 , is a prerequisite to a valid tax deed. Norris v. Kelsey, 23 Colo. App. 555, 130 P. 1088 (1913).   Tax deed must be according to form. In order to give color of title, the instrument of conveyance must at least be good in point of form, profess to convey the title, and be properly and duly executed. Dussart v. Abdo Mercantile Co., 57 Colo. 423 , 140 P. 806 (1914).   The form of a deed prescribed for cash purchasers should be substantially followed as far as its terms are applicable to the county as a bidder, and it should be varied only so far as may be necessary to show the truth of the transaction in substance. Dyke v. Whyte, 17 Colo. 296 , 29 P. 128 (1892).   Controlling date as to when deed becomes effective is the date of delivery. Sanderford v. Walker Inv. Co., 84 Colo. 203 , 269 P. 14 (1928).   Applied in United States Sec. & Bond Co. v. Wolfe, 27 Colo. 218 , 60 P. 637 (1900); Carnahan v. Sieber Cattle Co., 34 Colo. 257 , 82 P. 592 (1905); Bryant v. Miller, 48 Colo. 192 , 109 P. 959 (1910); Knoch v. County of Mesa, 159 Colo. 241 , 411 P.2d 1 (1966).   II. NECESSARY RECITALS IN DEED.   No title acquired to improvements unless described in tax deed. Where tax deeds do not describe improvements or the land to which they are incident, the holders of the deeds acquire no title to such improvements. Smith v. Highland Mary Mining, Milling & Power Co., 82 Colo. 288 , 259 P. 1025 (1927).   Deed containing proper recitals is prima facie evidence as to legal prerequisites. Richardson v. Halbekann, 97 Colo. 175 , 48 P.2d 1014 (1935); Walter v. Harrison, 101 Colo. 14 , 70 P.2d 335 (1937); White Cap Mining Co. v. Resurrection Mining Co., 115 Colo. 396 , 174 P.2d 727 (1946); Grusing v. Parke, 120 Colo. 555 , 212 P.2d 102 (1949).   The recitals in a tax deed must generally be taken as true in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Shaw v. Pioneer State Bank, 81 Colo. 528 , 256 P. 636 (1927).   Statutory tax deed fair on face. A tax deed in statutory form, containing no affirmative recitals which state that the prerequisites to obtaining it have been complied with, is fair and not void on its face. North Am. Realty Co. v. Brady, 77 Colo. 56 , 234 P. 1054 (1925).   Recitals in correcting deed prevail over former recitals. Positive affirmative recitals in a correcting tax deed must prevail over former recitals in an invalid first deed. Shaw v. Pioneer State Bank, 81 Colo. 528 , 256 P. 636 (1927).   III. DEFECTS VOIDING DEED ON ITS FACE.    Deed showing that sale was in violation of a positive statute is void. Gomer v. Chaffee, 6 Colo. 314 (1882); Knowles v. Martin, 20 Colo. 393 , 38 P. 467 (1894).   Deed showing incorrect location of sale is void. A deed which shows upon its face that the sale was held at a place other than that designated by statute is void. Crisman v. Johnson, 23 Colo. 264 , 47 P. 296, 58 Am. St. R. 224 (1896).   Deed failing to state amount of subsequent taxes paid by assignee. A tax deed based upon a sale to the county and a subsequent assignment of the certificate, which fails to state the amount of taxes assessed on the land subsequent to the date of the certificate and which fails to state the amount of subsequent taxes paid by the assignee is void upon its face. Empire Ranch & Cattle Co. v. Neikirk, 23 Colo. App. 392, 128 P. 468 (1897); Empire Ranch & Cattle Co. v. Gibson, 23 Colo. App. 399, 128 P. 472 (1913).   Failure to recite date of transfer of county tax certificate renders deed void. The failure of a tax deed based upon a tax certificate originally issued to the county under § 39-11-108 and assigned by the county to the grantee in the tax deed to recite the date and manner of the transfer of the certificate renders the deed void on its face. Empire Ranch & Cattle Co. v. Neikirk, 23 Colo. App. 392, 128 P. 468 (1913).   Deed failing to show name of officer assigning certificate void. A deed showing a sale to the county and an assignment of the certificate of purchase by the county, “by its proper officers”, but not showing by name or official title what officer made the assignment, is void upon its face. Poage v. E. H. Rollins & Sons, 24 Colo. App. 537, 135 P. 990 (1913); Emerson v. Valdez, 24 Colo. App. 458, 135 P. 137 (1913).   Deed showing county as purchaser on first day of sale void. A deed which shows that the land was sold to the county on the first day of the sale is void on its face. Dussart v. Abdo Mercantile Co., 57 Colo. 423 , 140 P. 806 (1914).   Tax deed showing a wrong date is void on its face. Hamer v. Glenn Inv. Co., 75 Colo. 423 , 226 P. 299 (1924).   Evidence aliunde not admissible to contradict recitals of deed void on its face. Evidence aliunde, for the purpose of showing that all preliminary steps up to the time of the tax sale were valid in all respects, was not admissible to contradict and vary the positive recitals of the tax deeds which make them void on their face, although, in a suit to reform such tax deeds so as to speak the truth, it might have been admitted and become sufficient with other evidence to authorize a court of equity to decree the reformation. Emerson v. Valdez, 24 Colo. App. 458, 135 P. 137 (1913); Poage v. E. H. Rollins & Sons, 24 Colo. App. 537, 135 P. 990 (1913).   If extraneous evidence is necessary to show illegality, deed is not void on its face. North Am. Realty Co. v. Brady, 77 Colo. 56 , 234 P. 1054 (1925).   Tax deed void on its face cannot set statute of limitations in motion. Jackson v. Larson, 24 Colo. App. 548, 136 P. 81 (1913).   IV. DEED CONVEYING SEVERAL TRACTS.    Tax deed is not objectionable because it conveys several contiguous tracts of land. Barnett v. Jaynes, 26 Colo. 279 , 57 P. 703 (1899).   Where a tax deed conveys title to several tracts of land, and the deeds show that they were advertized separately and that the purchasers bid for them separately, this is sufficient to show that they were sold separately. Waddingham v. Dickson, 17 Colo. 223 , 29 P. 177 (1892); Barnett v. Jaynes, 26 Colo. 279 , 57 P. 703 (1899).   Selling noncontiguous tracts en masse for gross sum voids deed. A tax deed is void on its face, where it shows that noncontiguous tracts of land were sold en masse for a gross sum. Norris v. Kelsey, 23 Colo. App. 555, 130 P. 1088 (1913).