Opinion ID: 884044
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Did the Yellowstone County Treasurer have jurisdiction to issue a tax deed on August 3, 1992, to Yellowstone County for Lot 7C, Block 8 in Emerald Hills Subdivision?

Text: We review a district court's grant of summary judgment using the same standard utilized by the district court. Summary judgment is proper only when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Rule 56(c), M.R.Civ.P.; Bruner v. Yellowstone County (1995), 272 Mont. 261, 264, 900 P.2d 901, 903. Sanders argues that the Yellowstone County Treasurer did not have jurisdiction to issue the tax deed. The parties in their Statement of Agreed Facts (SAF) agreed that Thomas E. Hannah was an interested party, entitled to notice prior to the issuance of the tax deed. The parties in their SAF agreed that Yellowstone County failed to notify Thomas E. Hannah. Sanders argues that because Yellowstone County failed to notify Thomas E. Hannah of the impending issuance of the tax deed, the treasurer was without jurisdiction to issue a tax deed. The notice requirements prior to the issuance of a tax deed, § 15-18-212, MCA, state: (1) Not more than 60 days prior to and not more than 60 days following the expiration of the redemption period provided in XX-XX-XXX, a notice must be given as follows: (a) for each property for which there has been issued to the county a tax sale certificate or for which the county is otherwise listed as the purchaser or assignee, the county clerk shall notify all persons considered interested parties in the property and the current occupant of the property, if any, that a tax deed may be issued to the county unless the property tax lien is redeemed prior to the expiration date of the redemption period.... .... (4) The notice required under subsections (1) and (2) must be made by certified mail, return receipt requested, to each interested party and the current occupant, if any, of the property. The address to which the notice must be sent is, for each interested party, the address disclosed by the records in the office of the county clerk and, for the occupant, the street address or other known address of the subject property. Subsection (5) sets forth the specific publication requirements when the address of the interested party is not known. Section 15-18-212(5), MCA. Section 15-18-111(3), MCA, defines interested party for use in this part, as any mortgagee, vendor of a contract for deed or the vendor's successor in interest, lienholder, or other person who has a properly recorded interest in the property. Thomas E. Hannah was an assignee of the 1977 contract for deed to the property and was an interested party under this section. Yellowstone County and Gaugers agreed that Thomas E. Hannah was an interested party in the SAF. Statement of Agreed Fact No. 18 reads: Yellowstone County failed to send notice of its intent to issue a tax deed to Thomas E. Hannah. The published notice did not set forth the name of Thomas E. Hannah. At the time the notice of issuance was given and at the time the tax deed was issued Thomas E. Hannah was an interested person, entitled to notice of sale. A title report issued to the county indicated that Thomas E. Hannah was one of the record holders of the vendees interest in the property. Clearly, the law required Yellowstone County to notify Thomas E. Hannah of the impending issuance of the tax deed. The required notice was not given in this case. We have recently held that failure to strictly comply with the statutory notice requirements for the issuance of a tax deed results in the treasurer being without jurisdiction to issue a tax deed. Moran v. Robbin (1993), 261 Mont. 478, 483, 863 P.2d 395, 400. In Moran, the property owners challenged the sufficiency of notice given pursuant to § 15-18-212, MCA. Due to the failure to give proper notice as required by § 15-18-212, MCA, we concluded that the treasurer was without jurisdiction to issue a tax deed. Moran, 863 P.2d at 400. In reversing the district court, we stated: Every essential and material step required by the tax deed statutes must be strictly followed. [Citation omitted.] ... A critical element in the process of applying for a tax deed requires the giving of notice by the tax deed applicant to the owner of the real property. The giving of notice is jurisdictional; if the legal requirements with respect to notice are not complied with, a county treasurer may not legally issue a tax deed. [Citation omitted.] ... A tax deed issued without the required proof of notice is void. [Citation omitted.] .... ... [T]he giving of notice is jurisdictional, and unless the statutory requirements with respect to such notice are met, a tax deed may not issue. Moran, 863 P.2d at 398-99 (emphasis added). We went on to hold that because the treasurer acted without jurisdiction, the deed was void ab initio. Moran, 863 P.2d at 400. In the present case, Yellowstone County and Gaugers admitted in the Statement of Agreed Facts that notice was not given to Thomas E. Hannah, an interested party, as required by § 15-18-212, MCA. Because the requirements of § 15-18-212, MCA, were not met, the treasurer did not have jurisdiction to issue the deed and the deed is therefore void ab initio. We conclude that the District Court erred in determining that Sanders did not have standing to challenge the issuance of the tax deed. Sanders properly instituted this quiet title action. We hold that because the notice requirements of § 15-18-212, MCA, were not satisfied, the Yellowstone County Treasurer did not have jurisdiction to issue a tax deed for the Thomas E. Hannah interest in the subject property and the tax deed issued was void ab initio. We reverse the decision of the District Court granting Yellowstone County's and Gaugers' motions for summary judgment. GRAY, ERDMANN, NELSON and HUNT, JJ., concur.