Court Opinion

ID: 9669581
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:00:21.18786+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:58.072522
License: Public Domain

SACKETT, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
I dissent. I would affirm the trial court. The issue is whether the trial court should have set aside a tax deed issued on June 23, 1992, by the Woodbury County Treasurer because plaintiff-appellant Arvin B. Nelson, who claimed to have an oral lease with the original titleholder of the property, was not served with a notice he had rights to redeem the property.
Because the tax deed had issued when this lawsuit was first filed, the first issue that needs to be addressed is not whether Nelson was entitled to notice of a right of redemption; rather, whether Nelson can show facts necessary to defeat the deed.
Iowa Code section 448.5 provides:
*584The deed shall be conclusive evidence of the following facts:
1.That the manner in which the listing, assessment, levy, notice and sale were conducted was in all respects as the law directed.
⅜ * * (6^⅛8⅛ added)
Iowa Code section 448.6 provides:
In all actions involving the title to a parcel claimed and held under a deed executed substantially as required in this chapter by the county treasurer, the person claiming title adverse to the title conveyed shall be required to prove, in order to defeat the title, any of the following:
1. That the parcel was not subject to taxes for the year and years named in the deed.
2. That the taxes had been paid before the sale.
3. That the parcel had been redeemed from the sale and that the redemption was made for the %ise and benefit of persons having the right of redemption.
4. That there had been an entire omission to list or assess the parcel, or to levy the taxes, or to give notice of the sale, or to sell the parcel, (emphasis added)
Iowa Code section 448.7 provides:
A person shall not be permitted to question the title acquired by a county treasurer’s deed without first showing that the person, or the person under whom that person claims title, had title to the parcel at the time of the sale, or that the title was obtained from the United States or this state after the sale, and that all amounts due upon the parcel have been paid by that person, or the person under whom that person claims title.
Because plaintiff cannot meet these statutory requirements to set aside the tax deed, there is no basis to set it aside and the trial court should be affirmed.