Document: 397 U.S. 286 90 S.Ct. 1033 25 L.Ed.2d 312 UNITED STATESv.ESTATE of Thomas S. DONNELLY, Sr., et al. No. 104. Argued Jan. 12, 1970. Decided March 23, Matthew J. Zinn, Asst. to the Solicitor Gen., for petitioner. Daniel N. Pevos. Southfield, Mich., respondents. Mr. Justice MARSHALL delivered opinion Court. 1 In 1950, a tax liability approximately $26,000 was assessed against taxpayer Donnelly, resident Michigan. Upon assessment, statutory lien created in favor United States 'upon all property and rights property, whether real or personal' belonging taxpayer. Internal Revenue Code 1939, § 3670. Under 3672 1939 Code, such could become effective subsequent purchasers Donnelly's either two ways: (1) by filing notice state office which authorized law; (2) if not law, District Court district located.1 2 A Michigan statute purported authorize federal notices with county register deeds. However, expressly required that liens upon contain 'a description land on is claimed.'2 The standard form used Treasury Department made no provision description, but rather blanket covering county. had taken position permitted law dictate place lien, content notice. Accordingly, Department, believing did 'authorize' deeds, filed its Eastern includes involved case, held Donnelly his wife as tenants entirety. question court gave priority good-faith purchaser land. 3 collect full nor it foreclose any property. Rather, between 1950 death 1963, obtained waivers from him limitations liability, last extended time collection December 31, 1966. meantime, Donnellt's died he became fee owner Livingston County Shortly thereafter, August 1960, sold respondents Mrs. Carlson, who are parties interest this case. An abstract title, prepared Carlsons office, disclosed affecting owned Donnelly; same abstract, however, disclaimed examination records, federal. concedes actual 4 After purchased land, decided v. Union Central Life Ins. Co., 368 291, 82 349, 7 294 (1961), been right maintaining have conform requirement must claimed. Thus, held, notices, appropriate fufficient give purchasers. 5 1966, just before waiver executed expired, brought suit now Carlsons. Central, supra, distinguishable, event should be applied retroactively person making purchase date decision, granted summary judgment 295 F.Supp. 557 (D.C.E.D.Mich.1967). Appeals affirmed basis 406 F.2d 1065 (C.A.6th Cir. 1969). We certiorari, 396 814, 57, 24 66 (1969), consider apparent conflict our decision we reverse. 6 distinguished ground 'an attempt (that case) file Register Deeds 1954, refused pursuant Attorney General rendered 1953, ruled containing entitled recorded. instant there Deeds.' F.Supp., at 559. attempted distinction unsatisfactory reasons. First, nothing Court's record case indicates Second, an made, barred local accepting notice, lacked explicitly statute. presence absence legally futile act tendering noncomplying deeds factor determinative lien.3 8 Further, when they were rely appeared time. As saw it, prevailing interpretation Michigan, stated Youngblood States, 141 912 1944), complying order gain Conceding rejected 1961, nevertheless concluded over Carlsons' 1960 goodfaith thus upset allegedly justifiable expectation unclouded title. 9 retroactivity determination, relied largely Chicot Drainage Baxter State Bank, 308 371, 60 317, 84 L.Ed. 329 (1940). petitioner advantage readjustment municipal debt, amounting reduction finding plan fair equitable approval holders two-thirds outstanding indebtedness. respondents, bonds issued petitioner, action, raised constitutional challenge statute, appealed final decree approving plan. Subsequently, unrelated proceeding, declared unconstitutional. Ashton Cameron District, 298 513, 56 892, 80 1309 (1936). then original bonds, canceled decree, claiming under unconstitutional support plea res judicata. This judicata new stressing fact claim action. noted generally existence prior determination unconstitutionality 10 'is operative may consequences cannot justly ignored. past always erased judicial declaration. * Questions claimed vested, status, determinations deemed finality acted accordingly, public policy light nature both previous application, demand examination.' U.S., 374, S.Ct., 318. 11 here found amounted invalidation providing justifiably invalidation, purchasing without first searching records court. Quoting above language Carlson's reliance subsequently invalidated sufficient them earlier lien. 12 view, does failure apply here. place, invalidate It merely construed 3672, accordance clear where failed provide filing. determined, courts other authorities considered agreed, Finally witht will Congress expressed 1942 amendment accompanying legislative history, imposing more onerous requirements than within meaning 13 most can said search construction given Sixth Circuit supra. construction, Government never accepted seek reviewed because rested independent grounds,4 deprive fruits following what proper procedure. 14 later unconstitutional, proceeding respondent even raise issue. analogous situation would presented only had, quiet title their party issue 3672. short, lacks element judicata—reliance favor—which decisive County. 15 Acts uniformly throughout country effectiveness onward. Generally like parties, adhere believes correct reap benefits adherence proves correct, except bound contrary particular Deviant rulings circuit appeals, particularly dictum, 'justified reliance' necessary warrant withholding retroactive application construing intended it. rare cases, decisions statutes might denied effect, instance overrules own cf. Simpson Oil 377 13, 25, 1051, 1059, 98 (1964), 16 reversed, remanded further proceedings5 inconsistent opinion. 17 so ordered. 18 Judgment reversed remanded. 19 HARLAN, concurring. 20 I fully agree prevail rest conclusion broader evince. More especially, fear certain distinctions suggested opinion—e.g., ambiguous statutes, time, overruling constructions statutes—may point direction quagmire civil litigation unlike has ensnared criminal field. See my dissenting Desist 394 244, 256, 89 1030, 1037, 22 248 (1969). 21 impulse make decisional rule nonretroactive rests, cases least, considerations lie core stare decisis, namely avoid jolting expectations transaction. Yet once abandon precedent see justification applying principles determined wrong, otherwise, litigants still come critical determining transaction consummated decision's announcement is, acquired degree frozen. Just field crucial moment conviction final, dissent, area beyond run fixed Any uncertainty engendered approach should. think, part risks life. These considerations, believe, underlie holdings s,.Ct. (1940), based change Cipriano City Houma, 395 U.S 701, 1897, 23 647 invalid referenda, subject 'where, challenging election result expired.' 706, 1901. To extent example, 'reliance,' relevant, take into account relief There are, course, circumstances jeopardize edifice reasonably constructed foundation legal doctrine. remedies permit rescission, award damages finds himself able once-valid contract notions policy. Cf. (1964). Another instance, though apt arise infrequently court, transactions fail anticipate changes governing usage, enforce-ability kinds easements covenants. instances withhold remedy confine limited period, like.* essential while flexibility affect underlying substantive principle short bar limitations, them. On these premises join DOUGLAS, whom BRENNAN STEWART concur, dissenting. 26 Respondents bona fide located County, Their one 1950. By valid until thereof 'authorized' law. Where located. Ibid. land' 27 regarding 'description 28 Hence accustomed way revealed clouding innocently good faith. Thereafter, 20, law.2 29 18, year after respondents' purchase, 294, 'Michigan authorizing given' ran counter intent consequently Id., 296, 352. Therefore, properly 30 dissent holding injure investments. Act approved Maniaci, 36 293, 912. 31 seems manifestly unjust benefit lawless collector knowingly concealed secret made.3 32 true later, require ruling preemption not, undo everything done those relying former upheld Youngblood. 33 hold teaching 318, 329, present situation: 34 'The effect invalidity various aspects,—with respect relations, individual corporate, conduct, private official. determinations, majority narrowly confines statement facts involved, rooted deeply fairness, clearly applies purchasers, whose purchases antedate previously construed, protected contrary. provided: 'Sec. Property Subject Lien. 'If liable pay neglects refuses demand, amount (including interest, penalty, additional amount, addition tax, together costs accrue thereto) shall personal, person.' U.S.C. 3670 (1940 ed.). Validity Against Mortgagees, Pledgees, Purchasers, Creditors. '(a) Invalidity Lien Without Notice.—Such mortgagee, pledgee, purchaser, creditor collector— '(1) Territorial laws.—In Territory situated, whenever Territory; '(2) With Clerk Court.—In clerk *.' (1946 Public Acts, 1923, 104, amended 1925, repealed 1956, 107, provided pertinent part: 1. That internal revenue collecting officers having charge payable desire acquire section three thousand hundred eighty-six revised hereby setting forth name residence business address taxpayer, claimed, counties situated; shall, receiving fifty cents index Nor significant General's referred (opinion 1709, September 10, 1953), whereas came rendered. already Youngblood, sought writ mandamus compel accept encumbered issue, first, lack jurisdiction writs orders mandamus; second, terms went on, confirm 116 935 aff'g 293 (D.C.W.D.Mich.1939), conforming content. delivering ignored summarized 295—296, 352, showed enacting meant disapprove Maniaci holding. defenses foreclosure Appeals, do view binding would, fact, obligated abide applicable diversity amended, 13. Previously, November 28, Wayne requiring April 1956 1956. thereafter promptly stand Instead, waited

Category: 11