Court Opinion

ID: 9864747
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 16:09:19.71541+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:31:29.514414
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Hays
especially concurring in part and dissenting in part.
*194I concur only in the conclusion reached by the majority as expressed in the court’s opinion upon the single ground that defendant Sullivan has no interest in the property, and therefore cannot question plaintiff’s title.
Section 101, chapter 138, ’35 C.S.A. provides inter alia: “§101. At any sale by the county treasurer of any property for the purpose of paying any special assessment for local improvements made under the provisions of sections 65 to 104 of this chapter, in such city or town, the city or town treasurer having written authority from the ordering authority may purchase any such property without paying for the same in cash; and shall receive certificates of purchase therefor in the name of the city or town. The certificates shall be received and credited at their face value, with all interest and penalties accrued, on account of the assessments in pursuance of which the sale was made. The certificates may thereafter he sold by the city or town treasurer at their face value, with all interest and penalties accrued, and by him assigned to the purchaser in the name of the city or town, and the proceeds credited to the fund created by ordinance for the payment of such assessments respectively. Such assignments shall be without recourse, and the sale and assignments shall operate as a lien in favor of the purchaser and assignee as is provided by law in the case of sales of real estate in default of payment of general taxes.” (Italics mine)
The above section provides the “only authority for disposition of the certificates held by the town.” McMillan v. Commissioners, 113 Colo. 387, 157 P. (2d) 146.
From the evidence of the defendant’s witness it appears that the assignments of the tax certificates from the town of Mountain View to Sullivan were not made in conformity with the above statute but were “turned over” to Sullivan as a “representative” of the bondholders “to determine their rights and attempt to collect what is due the bondholders.” The defendant in his brief *195admits that “Sullivan and Company owns them [the certificates] on behalf of the bondholders.”
The town of Mountain View, under the statute, was trustee for the bondholders, and is liable to the latter for any damages resulting from a neglect of its mandatory duties as trustee. Employers Mutual Ins. Co. v. Commissioners, 102 Colo. 177, 78 P. (2d) 380; Wangnild v. Town of Haxtun, 106 Colo. 180, 103 P. (2d) 474; Town of Haxtun v. Wangnild, 109 Colo. 518, 127 P. (2d) 328.
The town of Mountain View cannot escape its obligations and duties as statutory trustee by assigning the certificates to another trustee. The assignments of the certificates by the town to Sullivan were ultra vires and void, and passed no title whatever to the latter, who having no interest, cannot question plaintiff’s title. Young v. Rohan, 77 Colo. 70, 234 Pac. 694.
On all other points, I concur in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Stone.