Court Opinion

ID: 9628243
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:13:53.471691+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:01.439828
License: Public Domain

SCHAUER, J.,
Dissenting. — Plaintiff concedes that “unsevered trees . . . would pass with the land to the redemptioner, ” of tax-deeded land. I believe that the better view, and one which accords more with a sense of fairness to the taxpayer and property owner who redeems, and with the declared policy of the state, is that since the trees are part of the realty on which the taxes were originally assessed and on which the interest and penalties paid by the redemptioner accrued, the proceeds of the cut timber should belong to the owner who redeemed. Such proceeds plainly differ in nature from rentals collected for use of the land, which were held to belong to the state in the Maxfield case. (People v. Maxfield (1947), 30 Cal.2d 485, 487-488 [1-4] [183 P.2d 897].) Moreover, as reiterated in that case (p. 487 [1]), “the purpose of the [tax] conveyance is not the acquisition of the property but the collection of the taxes.”
*572In Merchants Finance Corp. v. Kuchel (1948), 83 Cal. App.2d 579, 585 [189 P.2d 513], although it was held that an owner of tax-deeded property who has not redeemed it may not by mandamus require the State Controller ‘ ‘ to retain and apply” to restoration of the property moneys collected by the state from a tenant as damages to the buildings and improvements on the land, the court remarked that “There appears to be merit in appellant’s contention that the owner is entitled to have the property restored ... in substantially the same condition ... if and when he redeems the property. But that question is not involved in this ease since the appellant has failed to redeem. ...” Further, in People v. Gustafson (1942), 53 Cal.App.2d 230, 234 [2] [127 P.2d 627], it was pointed out that “it is the settled policy of the law to give a delinquent taxpayer every reasonable opportunity compatible with the rights of the state, to redeem his property, and to make his burden as light as possible [citations] ; and the return to the tax rolls of the property which has been sold for taxes in order that it may again support general governmental functions is in the public interest. [Citation.] ”
Certainly nothing in section 3441 of the Revenue and Taxation Code precludes retention by the owner of the timber proceeds in this ease. The owner has redeemed; ergo, no damages by reason of the timber cutting may rightfully be claimed by the state. I would reverse the judgment.
McComb, J., concurred.