Sibley v. . Townsend

OlaeesoN, J. The question involved: Did R. Walter Townsend forfeit his life estate in the lands referred to in the complaint by reason of his failure to redeem said lands within twelve months after they had been sold for taxes, as provided in section 7982, Consolidated Statutes? We think so. O. S., 7982, is as follows: “Every person shall be liable for the taxes assessed or charged upon the property or estate, real or personal, or which he is tenant for life. If any tenant for life of real estate shall suffer the same to be sold for taxes by reason of his neglect or refusal to pay the taxes thereon, and shall fail to redeem the same within one year after such sale, he shall thereby forfeit his life estate to the re-mainderman or reversioner. The remainderman or reversioner may redeem such lands, in the manner that is provided for the redemption of other lands. Moreover, such remainderman or reversioner shall have the right to recover of such tenant for life, all damages sustained by reason of such neglect or refusal on the part of such tenant for life. If any tenant for life of personal property suffer the same to be sold for taxes by reason of any default of his, he shall be liable in damages to the remainderman or reversioner.” It is contended by plaintiff that the estate of the life tenant is not forfeited in the land until the tax sale certificate is foreclosed by court and the land sold by a commissioner. We cannot so hold. The statute, supra, in clear language says: “If any tenant for life of real estate shall suffer the same to be sold for taxes by reason of his neglect or refusal to pay the taxes thereon, and shall fail to redeem the same within one year after such sale, he shall thereby forfeit his life estate to the re-mainderman or reversioner.” The agreed statement of facts says: “That defendant, R. Walter Townsend, failed to pay the taxes due upon said lands for the year 1930 and subsequent years; that the said lands were sold at public auction for the 1930 taxes due thereon by P. S. Kornegay, sheriff of Robeson County, on 2 November, 1931, and bid in by Robeson County, and on said date of sale the certificate of sale was issued by the sheriff of Robeson County to Robeson County for said lands sold for the nonpayment of 1930 taxes due thereon by reason of the neglect and refusal of R. Walter Townsend to pay the taxes due thereon; that the said defendant, R. Walter Townsend, failed to redeem the same within *652 one year after sucb sale, and bas never redeemed said lands, nor paid any taxes due tbereon subsequent to the taxes for the year 1929.” The life tenant was entitled to the rents and profits of the land. We do not think the statute supra in language or intent means that the life tenant can for years until foreclosure of a tax lien, keep the rents and profits each year and not pay the tax and claim under the statute there was no forfeiture. In Smith v. Miller, 158 N. C., 98 (103) : “The law evidently means, that if the life tenant does not pay, and thereby exposes the land to sale, he may intervene and prevent a sale by paying the tax, and for the same reason that he can redeem from a tax sale already made.” In Logan v. Griffith, 205 N. C., 580 (582), it is said: “The applicable statutes create a lien for purchasers at tax sales, and also prescribe the procedure for enforcing said lien. ‘Foreclosure’ is the process provided for turning the lien into money.” In Bryan v. Bryan, ante, 464 (465), it is said: “The defendant advances the proposition that the plaintiff must settle the unpaid taxes before he can maintain an action to declare the life estate forfeited. We find no such prerequisite either in the statute or in the decisions of this Court. The statute is specific: The life tenant forfeits his estate to the remainderman or reversioner when he suffers it to be sold for taxes by reason of his neglect or refusal to pay the taxes and to redeem the property within a year after the sale. O. S., 7982. The remainder-man’s payment of the taxes due by the life tenant, is not a condition antecedent to the institution of his action for forfeiture. The necessity of protecting the remainderman or reversioner is obvious.” In some cases, this may be a hard rule, but it is the law as written and we must adhere to it. For the reasons given, the judgment of the court below is Affirmed. SoheNCk, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.