Yetter v. Gallatin Co.

No. 81-184 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTAN

GERALD P. YETTER, Plaintiff and Appellant,

GALLATIN COUNTY; RUTH B. STUCKEY, Gallatin County Treasurer; LUCILLE BRIDGES, et al., Defendants and Respondents.

Appeal from: District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Gallatin Honorable W. W. Lessley, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Allen McAlear argued and Lawrence Swenson argued, Bozeman, Montana For Respondents: Donald E. White, County Attorney, Bozeman, Montana Berg, Coil, Stokes & Tollefsen, Bozeman, Montana Ben E. Berg argued, Bozeman, Montana For Amicus Curiae: Honorable Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana

Submitted: March 1, 1982 Decided: May 17, 1982 Filed: MAY 17 1982

Mr. J u s t i c e J o h n Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d the Opinion of the Court.

Gerald Yetter filed an action in the Eighteenth J u d i c i a l District., i n and f o r G a l l a t i n County, t o annul a t a x deed. L e e McDonald, t h e t a x deed p u r c h a s e r , w a s g r a n t e d summary j udgment, and Yetter a p p e a l s .

The c o n t r o v e r s y i n t h i s c a s e c e n t e r s a r o u n d t h e 400-a c r e G r e a t S p r i n g s Ranch l o c a t e d on t h e e d g e o f Lake Hebgen. Gerald Yetter (hereinafter "owner" ) has owned t-he ranch s i n c e 1960. I n 1 9 7 5 h e l e a s e d t h e r a n c h and moved t o I d a h o . H i s forwarding a d d r e s s a t t h e p o s t o f f i c e e x p i r e d i n 1976.

The owner f a i l e d t o p a y t a x e s f r o m 1 9 7 5 t h r o u g h 1 9 7 8 , a n d o n J u l y 1 9 , 1 9 7 9 , Lee McDonald ( h e r e i n a f t e r " p u r c h a s e r " ) purchased t h e one m i l l i o n d o l l a r ranch f o r $4,085.79 i n back taxes. The c o u n t y t r e a s u r e r i s s u e d t h e p u r c h a s e r a n a s s i g n -ment o f t h e t a x s a l e c e r t - i f i c a t e s on t h a t d a t e .

On J u l y 3, 1979, the purchaser mailed a not.ice of a p p l i c a t i o n f o r t a x d e e d t o t h e o w n e r ' s e x p i r e d West Yellows t o n e p o s t o f f i c e box. The same n o t i c e was p u b l i s h e d for two weeks commencing A u g u s t 1 4 , 1 9 7 9 .

A tax deed was issued by the county treasurer on October 15, 1979, based on the purchaser's affidavit of s e r v i c e of n o t i c e of a p p l i c a t i o n f o r t a x deed.

A claim o f t a x t i t l e was p u b l i s h e d b y t h e p u r c h a s e r o n O c t o b e r 1 7 and 2 4 , 1 9 7 9 , p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 15-18-403,

MCH.

I n t h e i n s t ~ a n t case t h e owner had no n o t i c e w h a t s o -ever that his ranch w a s being sold for taxes. A friend, however, s a w t h e l a s t . p u b l i c n o t i c e i n t h e p a p e r and n o t - i -f i e d t h e owner.

'The owner went t o the county treasurer's o f f i c e on November 15 or 16 to redeem his property. 'The countyt r e a s u r e r had to calculate the total amount d u e and could n o t do it t h a t day. Therefore, t h e owner gave the county treasurer a blank check, good for a sum not to exceed $5,000, and asked the treasurer to complete it for the amount n e c e s s a r y t o r e d e e m h i s p r o p e r t y .

The owner's checking account contained $4,442.18. 'The dctual amount due was a p p r o x i m a t e l y $4,270. However, t h e county t r e a s u r e r included t a x e s due on o t h e r l a n d s t h a t the owner had sold, which brought the tax total to $4,885.63. Thus, t h e o w n e r ' s a c c o u n t had i n s u f f i c i e n t f u n d s to c o v e r t h e check, and the period f o r redemption expired. 'The o w n e r then deposited $4,300 with the court and filed s u i t to annul t h e t a x deed.

The p r o p e r t y d e s c r i p t i o n u s e d b y t h e c o u n t y t r e a s u r e r and the tax deed purchaser was an abbreviated d e s c r i p t i o n p r e p a r e d by and f o r t h e u s e o f t h e c o u n t y t a x a s s e s s o r . The d e s c r i p t i o n does not indicate i n which portion of a large t r a c t o f l a n d t h e r a n c h is l o c a t e d . Yet, this description was u s e d i n t h e county t r e a s u r e r ' s records, the treasurer's certificates of tax sale, the treasurer 's assignment of duplicate certificates of tax s a l e to t h e purchaser, purchaser's not-ice of application for the tax deed and his affidavit of notice of application for t a x deed, the tax d e e d i t s e l f , and t h e n o t i c e o f claim o f t a x t i t l e .

The s o l e i s s u e c o n s i d e r e d i s : has t h e d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e real property d e f i c i e n t ?

The d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e r e a l p r o p e r t y u s e d in the tax s a l e p r o c e e d i n g s is a s f o l l o w s :

"Pt.. SE4 l e s s 1.2A t r . i n N2SE4 a n d tr. in S2SW4NE4 - S e c . 1 2 , Twp 1 2 S , Rge 4E.

"W2SE4, P t . SW4 l e s s 9.79A a n d SW4LVW4, L W ~ S W ~ less R-W and t r . H s u b j e c t t o f l o o d r i g h t s - Sec. 7, Twp 1 2 S , Rge 5E.

"NW4NE4, NE4SE4Nv74 w i t h 9.624 a l s o a s s e s s e d t o M o n t a n a Power u n d e r f l o o d r i g h t s - S e c . 1 8 , 'fwp 1 2 S , Rge 5E."

The d e s c r i p t i o n in the instant case is t o o vague t o a d e q u a t e l y i d e n t i f y t h e l a n d i n q u e s t i o n , and t h e r e f o r e , t h e description is fatally defective. See, Miller v. ivIurphy ( 1 9 4 6 ) , 1 1 9 Mont. 393, 1 7 5 P.2d 1 8 2 ; Mary M. Miller & Sons v. D a n i e l s ( 1 9 0 7 ) , 47 Wash. 411, 92 P. 268. Cf ., Komadina v. Edmondson ( 1 9 7 0 ) , 8 1 N.M. 467, 468 P.2d 632.

The notice of publication under section 15-18-403, MCA, was deficient . S e c t ion 15-18-403 ( 2 ) , MCA, provides t h a t the published "fiotice of claim of a tax title" shall s e t f o r t h a d e s c r i p t i o n o f any p r o p e r t y claimed. A s noted above, t h e p r o p e r t y d e s c r i p t i o n used is v o i d f o r v a g u e n e s s . Thus, t h e p u r c h a s e r a l s o h a s f a i l e d t o meet t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f s e c t i o n 15-18-403(2), MCA.

S e v e r a l o t h e r i s s u e s have been r a i s e d i n t h i s a p p e a l , including the const.itutionality of s e c t i o n 15-18-403, iVICA. However, the t.ax d e e d is v o i d , so we need not reach t.he remaining i s s u e s .

Reversed and remanded. The Dist.rict Court shall cancel t h e t a x deed. Ne c o n c u r :