Court Opinion

ID: 9518506
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 00:54:47.888705+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:29:22.626369
License: Public Domain

*252Black, J.
(dissenting). It is alleged by plaintiff, and should be presently accepted as true, that defendants knew actually of its interest in the lot and that they failed to notify it of the fact of filing of the return, under section 140 of the general property tax law (CL 1948, § 211.140 [Stat Ann 1960 Rev § 7.198]), and failed otherwise to give it that opportunity of reconveyance to which plaintiff, as actual owner, would have been entitled had the deed from Wilmington been timely recorded. In such circumstances equity may and should impute to the holder of a tax deed that duty of fair — no, decent — dealing which is woven into each of her maxims. We said, of said section 140 of the general tax law (Winters v. Cook, 140 Mich 483, 487):
“This section was designed as a relief to owners of delinquent tax lands, and to prevent the divestiture of their titles, beyond redemption, through ignorance, inattention, or carelessness. It plainly indicates that the purchaser is expected to give an express notice, wherever practicable, with a 6-months interval thereafter, within which the land may be redeemed. It imposes upon the purchaser the obligation of good faith, and an earnest effort to ascertain the owner and his whereabouts, and an honest attempt to give him actual notice and the statutory opportunity. Any effort to avoid it through fraud or collusion, or intentional omission to comply with the spirit of this statute, should not be permitted to be effective, if the courts can legitimately avoid it.”
It would have cost defendants nothing, and occasioned them little difficulty, to inform plaintiff of the impending peril of loss of its title. Which is to say that the chancellor should have determined, upon the taking of necessary testimony, whether defendants did or did not know as alleged about plaintiff’s interest in the lot. If they did have such knowledge, then it would seem that the case calls for a full *253testimonial bearing of plaintiff’s allegations of conspiracy.
I would reverse and remand for due pleading and bearing.
Souris, J., concurred witb Black, J.
Otis M. Smith, J., took no part in tbe decision of tbis case.