Court Opinion

ID: 9558557
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:12:22.696324+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:23.976345
License: Public Domain

O’NEAL, J.
(dissenting). I am unable to concur in the opinion in the above cause insofar as it holds the resale tax deed involved to be invalid.
*144There is some evidence to the effect that the county treasurer in computing the total amount of taxes, interest, penalties and costs in preparing the notice or advertisement for the sale may have intended to include the amount represented by the last quarter of taxes for 1944 ($2.61) plus the penalty of 37c thereon. That would have been $2.98 more than was actually due and delinquent on April 12, 1945, the date of the first publication of the notice of sale. But in computing and stating the aggregate amount of the delinquent taxes of the years 1941, 1942, 1943, • penalties, etc., for which the land was to be sold, the county treasurer arrived at the total of $56.97. That amount was a few cents less than the total of (1) all taxes for 1941, (2) all taxes for 1942, (3) all taxes for 1943, and (4) three-fourths only of the taxes for 1944. The land was advertised to be sold for said sum of $56.97. It was sold for that sum. That sum was not large enough to include any part of the last quarter of 1944 taxes or any penalty thereon, therefore, it did not include any part thereof. If the treasurer did intend to include that last quarter, he failed to do so by the computation he made. The result was that the land was actually advertised for sale and actually sold for a few cents less than the total amount of taxes, interest, penalty and costs due and delinquent on April 12, 1945, instead of more.
The law, 68 O. S. 1941 §432b, provides that the notice of sale shall show the total amount of all delinquent taxes, costs, penalties and interest due and unpaid on each tract of land advertised for resale, and further provides:
“It shall not be necessary to set forth the amount of taxes, penalties, interest and costs, accrued each year separately, but it shall be sufficient to publish the total amount of all due and unpaid taxes, penalties, interest and costs.”
The notice as published complied with these provisions except as to the correctness of the total amount due. That amount was slightly incorrect in that it was too small by 47c.
This court has many times held that an advertisement or sale of land for the last quarter of the current year’s taxes not delinquent when the first notice is published renders the sale invalid. Rogers v. Sheppard, 200 Okla. 203, 192 P. 2d 643; Lind v. McKinley, 196 Okla. 4, 161 P. 2d 1016; House v. Mainka, 196 Okla. 174, 163 P. 2d 225; Sarkeys v. Evans, 197 Okla. 304, 170 P. 2d 229; Carman v. McMahan, 198 Okla. 367, 178 P. 2d 626. But those decisions clearly demonstrate that the reason for holding such sales invalid is that they result in a sale of the land for an amount in excess of the taxes, interest, penalties and costs actually due and delinquent.
In Sarkeys v. Evans, supra, it is held:
“The undisputed evidence is to the effect that the $561.53 designated as ‘total due’ was excessive in the sum of about $13, explained by adding in of the last quarter of 1938 taxes which was not delinquent at the time of first publication of notice, such last quarter amounting to some $13.”
In House v. Mainka, supra, it is said:
“The notice of resale was erroneous in that it was excessive, in the sum of approximately $6, which was the portion of the 1940' taxes which had not yet become due and delinquent. That error and excessive amount in the notice for the reason indicated renders the sale invalid.”
In Lind v. McKinley, supra, it is said:
“It therefore follows that by reason of the resale of the land for a substantial sum in excess of the amount of taxes, penalties and costs the power to sell was defeated, the defendant was entitled to have her tender accepted, and the trial court erred in rendering judgment for plaintiff.”
It thus appears that the reason, and the only reason, for holding such sales invalid is that they result in the sale of the land involved for an amount in excess of the taxes, interest, penalties *145and costs against the land actually due and delinquent.
As shown above, the amount for which the land was advertised ($56.97) was, in fact, at least 47c less than the amount of taxes, interest, penalties and 'costs against the land actually due and delinquent on April 12, 1945, not including any portion of the last quarter of 1944 taxes or any penalty thereon.
In Hight v. Collingsworth, 194 Okla. 507, 153 P. 2d 96, it was held:
“A resale tax deed based upon the 1939 tax resale is not invalid because the property was advertised at the resale for less than the amount of taxes, interest, penalties, and costs assessed against the property and delinquent at the time of the resale.”
In Baldwin v. Gillaspie, 197 Okla. 175, 169 P. 2d 204, it was held:
“A resale tax deed based upon a tax resale is not invalid because the sum of the taxes, interest, penalties and costs stated in the notice as $411.93 is less by $6.92 than would have been reflected if correct computation of penalties and costs had been made.”
The facts in Baldwin v. Gillaspie, supra, are quite similar to the facts in the instant case.
In Meyers v. Lackey, 194 Okla. 586, 153 P. 2d 1020, it is held:
“The recitation in a resale tax deed that land was bid off at resale for a stated sum, which sum was less than the amount of all taxes, interest, penalties and costs, on the property sold at resale, does not render the resale deed invalid.”
Under the foregoing cases the sale was not invalid because the land was advertised and sold for less than the total amount of taxes, interest, penalties and costs due and delinquent against the land. It cannot be said that the sale was invalid for the reason the land was advertised and sold for more than the amount of the taxes, interest, penalties and costs due at the time the first notice of sale was published for the reason that the record and uncon-tradicted evidence was that the amount for which the land involved was advertised and sold was less than the total amount of the taxes, interest, penalties and costs.
The trial court erred in holding the resale tax deed involved invalid and in canceling said resale tax deed.
The evidence does not support a finding that the land was advertised for resale and sold for an amount in excess of the delinquent taxes, interest, penalties and costs against the land as of April 12, 1945.
For the reasons above stated, I respectfully dissent from the opinion insofar as it holds the resale tax deed invalid.
I am authorized to say that Mr. Justice WELCH concurs in these views.