Court Opinion

ID: 9720816
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:42:12.38006+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:21.516290
License: Public Domain

*943STEPHENS, J.
I concur in the result. However, it is unnecessary to argue at length the meaning of “bank check.” Whether the city accepted payment in a form other than that set forth in Revenue and Taxation Code section 2504 does not control the result. As stated in Fernandez Co. v. Montoya (1938) 42 N.M. 524 [82 P.2d 289, 290]: “The treasurer [City] was the agent of [the tax deed holder] for the collection of the taxes [citations] and in view of the facts herein, the [tax deed holder] cannot complain that the tender was not made in money and at the office of the treasurer. Knowledge of the custom of accepting money orders in payment of taxes was chargeable to [the tax deed holder], and if the treasurer had accepted the money order, payment to [the tax deed holder] of the amount due it would have been made in money if so demanded.”
The purpose of the section (§ 2504) is to protect the treasurer from bad checks and the tax deed purchaser has no interest in it; his interest on a redemption is solely that he get his money back.
Fernandez Co., supra, cites supportive authority for its analysis from Michigan, Indiana, Iowa, Illinois, Washington, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, and we see no reason for California to hold contrary to the well-reasoned opinions of our sister states, and certainly our statute does not suggest to the contrary.