Court Opinion

ID: 9615725
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:40:05.377824+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:51.122332
License: Public Domain

Given, Judge,
dissenting:
Being of the opinion that the attempted reassessment against Hatcher is void, I respectfully dissent. The statute quoted in the majority opinion authorizes such reassessment only if it “would have been lawful under proper proceedings at the time said improvement was completed, * * The improvement as to Lot 31 was completed July 26,1949, and as to Lots 8 and 9 on October 8, 1949. The State was not a party to the reassessment proceeding and, admittedly, the reassessment was void as to it. Hatcher did not obtain any interest in the property until his purchase from the deputy commissioner of forfeited and delinquent lands, long after the improvements were completed. Therefore, any assessment against Hatcher would not have been “lawful under proper proceedings at the time said improvement was completed, * * for the plain reason that a valid assessment can not be made against a person who owns no interest in the property.
I can not believe that such a reassessment against a subsequent purchaser of real estate within ten years from the date of the completion of an improvement is authorized, either expressly or by intendment, by the statute quoted. To so hold would deprive subsequent purchasers of the right to rely on public records as to the existence or nonexistence of liens of such assessments, a right made plain by the recording statutes. But, says the majority, “Hatcher was charged with knowledge of the existence of the improvements and unpaid claim against the lots he had purchased * * I can not reconcile this conclusion of the majority with its conclusion that the first assessments “were ineffectual and void.” Why require a subsequent purchaser to take notice of a void lien? Can we breathe life into a claim that has ceased to exist, has expired by operation of law?
*183The majority cites authority holding that such a reassessment statute is not unconstitutional as violating the due process provisions of the Federal and State Constitutions. Properly interpreted, I think there can be no doubt as to the constitutionality of the reassessment statute quoted. As interpreted by the majority, however, I think it unconstitutional. The majority opinion permits the reassessment to be made and to become a lien against the property of a person who purchases it within ten years after the completion of the improvement. Such a person would be denied the right or opportunity to show that the costs of the improvement would be confiscatory, or that the improvement should not have been made, or other grounds available to persons who owned the property at the time the improvement was completed. Neither could the owner who purchased the property ten years after the completion of the improvement show that the full benefit and use of the improvement had been enjoyed by former owners. It is certain that in many cases, under the majority holding, subsequent purchasers would be forced to pay for improvements enjoyed in full or in pant by former owners. This amounts to a taking of property of one person for the benefit of another without any opportunity to defend. No authority need be cited to show that such procedure is void of due process.
I am authorized to say that Judge Fox joins in this dissent.