Opinion ID: 886734
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Voiding of McDonald's Judgment and Quiet Title Decree

Text: ¶ 19 McDonald first notes that the redemption period for tax sales expires either three years after the first day of the tax sale, or sixty days after giving notice that a tax deed may issue, whichever is later. As such, McDonald argues that Gentry's right of redemption expired on July 17, 1998, and the District Court erred in concluding that Gentry had a continuing right to redeem. In addition, McDonald argues that the requisite notices he filed comported with statutory requirements. ¶ 20 Gentry argues that McDonald neither notified the occupant of the Property regarding the fact that a tax deed may issue, nor did he file the proper proof of notice regarding the same. As such, Gentry contends that the District Court was correct in concluding that the notices and proof of notice were deficient and the tax deed was void. ¶ 21 Before we address the issue of whether the District Court erred in granting Gentry's motion for summary judgment, we must first address whether McDonald was mandated by statute to give Gentry notice initially. ¶ 22 Section 15-18-212(1)(a), MCA, states that notice must be given: 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. [Emphasis added.] ¶ 23 Whereas, § 15-18-212(1)(b), MCA, states that notice must be given: for each property for which there has been issued a tax sale certificate to a purchaser other than the county or for which an assignment has been made, the purchaser or assignee, as appropriate, shall notify all persons considered interested parties in the property, if any, that a tax deed will be issued to the purchaser or assignee unless the property tax lien is redeemed prior to the expiration date of the redemption period. [Emphasis added.] ¶ 24 However, § 15-18-212(4), MCA, states: The notice required under subsection[](1) ... 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. [Emphasis added.] ¶ 25 Flathead County assigned its right to the Property to McDonald. As such, § 15-18-212(1)(b), MCA, applies. Interestingly, that section does not require notice to be given to current occupants, although that language appears in subsection (1)(a). However, regardless of this discrepancy, we note here that § 15-18-212(4), MCA, states both clearly and explicitly that the notice required under subsection (1)-inclusive of subsections (a) and (b)  must be made to each interested party and the current occupant. Further, we have held that [e]very essential and material step required by the tax deed statutes must be strictly followed, given that an owner risks losing his or her property for a mere pittance, should these statutes not be followed strictly. Moran v. Robbin (1993), 261 Mont. 478, 482-83, 863 P.2d 395, 397-98. To that end, we conclude that McDonald was mandated by statute to give Gentry notice. We proceed with our analysis of that notice on that basis. ¶ 26 Again, § 15-18-212(4), MCA, states that notice must be given to the current occupant of the property by certified mail, with the notice being sent to the occupant at the street address or other known address for the subject property. While McDonald argues that both Gentry's status as the current occupant of the Property and the address of the Property are questions of material fact, the District Court found to the contrary. Indeed, the District Court found: Defendant [McDonald] does not deny that he failed to notify the occupant of the property, but offers excuses as to why he didn't. Defendant suggests that somehow Plaintiff [Gentry] was not the property occupant, although that fact is not in dispute. Defendant suggests that there is no street address for Spotted Bear Ranch, thus notice couldn't have been mailed and that notice via general delivery would be ineffective. None of these are statutory excuses. There was no attempt to notify the occupant which the statute requires, whether effective or not. ¶ 27 Review of the records shows that in McDonald's Answer to Gentry's Complaint, McDonald admitted that: (1) in December 1994, Plaintiff [Gentry] purchased an outfitting business; (2) Plaintiff has continued to operate the outfitting business from 1994 through the date of its [Gentry's] Complaint; and (3) Plaintiff has acquired and maintained a special use permit. Even more telling is McDonald's answer to the following allegation, as articulated in Gentry's Complaint: 3. Flathead County assessed property taxes upon the buildings and improvements of Spotted Bear Ranch, described as improvement number 226 on Forest Service land, located in S17, T25, R15 Flathead County, Montana. Plaintiff [Gentry] did not receive any notice of tax assessment nor of taxes due. These taxes therefore went delinquent. ¶ 28 In response to Gentry's above-quoted allegation, McDonald stated: 3. In response to Paragraph 3 of Plaintiff's Complaint on file herein McDonald admits that Flathead County assessed the taxes as alleged in Plaintiff's Complaint but denies that Plaintiff did not receive notice of the assessment and further denies that this was the reason the taxes went delinquent. [Emphasis added.] ¶ 29 As is evident from the above-quoted language, the District Court was correct in finding that Gentry's status as the occupant of the Property was not in dispute. McDonald admitted that he was aware that Gentry had been and currently was operating an outfitting business. McDonald also admitted that he was aware that Flathead County had assessed taxes as alleged in Gentry's Complaint, namely that Flathead County assessed property taxes upon the buildings and improvements of Spotted Bear Ranch, located on Forest Service Land in S17, T25, R15 of Flathead County. ¶ 30 Under § 15-18-212(4), MCA, McDonald was mandated to give notice to Gentry, as the current occupant of the Property, that a tax deed may issue. McDonald admittedly knew that Gentry was the occupant and where Gentry was located, and McDonald simply did not provide the requisite notice. Accordingly, we hold that the District Court was correct in voiding McDonald's quiet title decree and in granting Gentry summary judgment, as no genuine issues of material fact existed and Gentry was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.