Court Opinion

ID: 9825738
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 14:02:04.736689+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:41:19.664441
License: Public Domain

Frank Gr. Smith, J. (Supplemental Opinion on Rehearing). In support of the petition for rehearing it is insisted that the opinion in the instant case is in conflict with the opinion in the case of Schuman v. Walthour, 204 Ark. 634, 163 S. W. 2d 517. But not so. Here appellees, plaintiffs below, asked the equitable relief of having the confirmation decree vacated, which relief was accorded, but upon condition that appellee do equity, that is that they pay the taxes which had accrued subsequent to the tax sale, as well as those for which the land had been sold. If this is not done the state will lose all the taxes due it from the date of the tax sale to the date of the sale to appellants by the state. The title which the state sold to the appellant lumber company having failed, appellant will no doubt seek reimbursement from the state for the purchase price of the land, and the state will have lost its taxes on these lands for a period of about fifteen years, unless appellees are required to do equity by paying the taxes which the landowners were under legal obligations to pay, if they wish to preserve their title free from the lien of the state for the amount of these unpaid taxes. Vacating the confirmation decree would not of course discharge the lien of the state for these unpaid taxes, which lien subsists until discharged by payment of the taxes. It is true that the owner of the original title was not required to pay Schuman, who had purchased the state’s title in the case of Schuman v. Walthour, supra, but the facts were different from those in the instant case. In the Schuman case the provisions of Act 282 of the Acts of 1939 (since amended by Act 282 of the Acts of 1943) had been invoked and availed. But not so here. This Act. 282 provides that if the tax assessor deems the assessment of the taxes for the nonpayment of which the land had forfeited to the state were too high, he was authorized to prepare a certificate showing that he had made a reassessment under the Act which revised and corrected assessment which shall be forwarded to the Commissioner of State Lands. Upon receipt of the revised assessment, the Act requires that it be entered upon a record in the Land Commissioner’s office, kept for that purpose, which officer “ shall thereafter issue redemption deeds or sale deeds for forfeited land in the manner and form now provided by law based upon the said reassessment values. ’ ’ Thereafter the delinquent land stands charged not with the original assessment, but with the revised assessment. The taxes then dne are based not upon thé original assessment, but on the revised assessment. In the instant case there is no showing that the assessments had been reduced as was' done in the Schuman case, supra, pursuant to Act 282. The assessment in the Schuman case had been reduced so that the purchaser from the state was not required to pay the accumulated taxes amounting to $204.18, but paid only $33.22.-Schuman, the purchaser'from the state, sought to charge the original owner with the total amount of the taxes which would have been due on the original assessment, but he did not pay the state that amount for the land. He paid only $33.22, and it was held that in equity he was entitled to recover only what he had paid, with interest. Schuman asked for no equitable relief, and it was held that he was entitled to recover only what he had paid with interest. Here appellees, who did not acquire title under the provisions of Act 282, but under other legislation, probably Act 331 of 1939, are asking for equitable relief, and the opinion here questioned holds that they may have that relief but upon the condition that they do equity, that is that they pay the amount of the general taxes, which would have been paid had appellees and their predecessors in title discharged their legal duty of paying the taxes assessed against the land as they matured and became payable. Appellees have tendered and insist that they should only be required to pay the taxes for which the land sold, and those paid by appellants, since appellants purchased from the state. If this is all appellees may be required to pay, the state will have lost its taxes for a period of about fifteen years, after refunding to appellant the purchase price paid for the state’s title, which has failed. It does not appear equitable that where appellees and their predecessors in title for many years failed to perform their legal duty of paying the taxes as they matured, that they should now be entitled to recover the land freed from the state’s lien without paying the taxes which were at all times due, but never paid by anyone.