Woodring v. Morris

1953 OK 230, 261 P.2d 212, 1953 Okla. LEXIS 509
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedSeptember 15, 1953
DocketNo. 35372
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 1953 OK 230 (Woodring v. Morris) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Woodring v. Morris, 1953 OK 230, 261 P.2d 212, 1953 Okla. LEXIS 509 (Okla. 1953).

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

Callie Woodring commenced this action on May 2, 1947, to quiet title to 160 acres of land in Major County, Oklahoma, which included 80 acres described as the west half of northeast quarter of Section 30, [213]*213Township 20 North, Range IS West. Plaintiff deraigned his title to said 80 acres through a resale tax deed issued by C. T. Sheets, County Treasurer of Major County, Oklahoma, to plaintiff, on May 15, 1939. He further alleged that the defendant Morris claimed some right, title or interest in and to said real property adverse to plaintiff. Service of summons was had by publication, and thereafter on July 2, 1947, a default judgment was rendered, adjudging the resale tax deed to be valid as to said 80 acres and quieting title thereto in the plaintiff. On April 15, 1950, the defendant appeared and moved to vacate the judgment. Thereafter, on June 24, 1950, the judgment was “opened” by order of the court and the defendant permitted to file an answer and cross-petition. The answer and cross-petition attacked the validity of the tax deed and the proceedings leading up to the tax sale and then asked that the tax deed be cancelled, declared null and void and that the title of the defendant be quieted as against the plaintiff. Upon trial of the cause, judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant, adjudging the resale tax deed issued to plaintiff, void, and quieting title to the property involved, in the defendant.

Plaintiff has perfected this appeal.

Although several errors are assigned by plaintiff, the only question necessary for us to determine is whether the resale tax deed, issued to plaintiff by the County Treasurer on May 15, 1939, and the proceedings upon which it is based, are valid.

The defendant and cross-petitioner attacked the deed upon the ground that the notice of the sale, published by the County Treasurer prior to the sale, included taxes for the last quarter of the year, which taxes were not delinquent on the date of the first publication of the notice. The notice was as follows:

“Notice of Re-Sale
Real Estate for Taxes
Major County j State of Oklahoma.
“Notice is hereby given that, under authority and direction of Sections 12754, 12755, and 12756, O.S.1931, each of the hereinafter described lots, tracts, and parcels of real estate, all situated in Major County, State of Oklahoma, will be sold at public auction to the highest competitive bidder for cash, provided that for each parcel or tract, other than vacant lots, situated within a city or town, the bidder offers a sum equal to or greater than the full amount of ad valorem and special taxes due and unpaid thereon, together with all interest, penalties and costs accrued and legally due on date of resale; said sale to be held at the office of the County Treasurer in the Court House at the County Seat of Major County, State of Oklahoma, beginning on the Third Monday in April, 1939, between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 4:00 P.M. and continuing from day to day thereafter between the same hours until said sale has been completed according to law.
“It is hereby stated that none of the following described lots, tracts, and parcels of real estate has been redeemed for the period of two years from the date of sale to the county, and that following each described lot, tract, and parcel of real estate in the schedule below appears, in the order herein set out, the name of the owner as shown by the last tax rolls in the office of the County Treasurer, the date on which said real estate was sold to the county for delinquent taxes, the year or years for which taxes have been assessed (dash indicated first to last year inclusive), now delinquent and unpaid, however the bidder must pay the last quarter of the 1938 tax in addition to the listed price.
“The above notice applies to the following lots, tracts, and parcels, to-wit:
“Witness my hand this 16th day of March, 1939.
■“C. T. Sheets, County Treasurer.
“Description of Lands
Date Sold to County, 11-7-32
“ * * *■ (Descriptions of real estate which is not involved are not copied here, but are omitted from this case made for the sake of brevity) * * *
“W½ NEH, 30-20-15 M. F. Morris, ’30-37 & ¾ ’38 .$132.64.”

[214]*214The above notice was published in the Fairview News on March 17, 1939, March 24, 1939, March 31, 1939 and April 7, 1939. Pursuant to said notice the sale was held on the third Monday in April (April 17) and the property sold to Callie Woodring for $132.64. The County Treasurer’s resale land list and record of re-sales shows that the land was assessed and sold for delinquent and unpaid taxes for the years 1930-1937 and %ths of 1938, said net amount of tax being $112.72, the interest, penalties and costs being $19.92, or a total of $132.64. The same record showed that the land was sold to Callie Woodring, that he paid the Treasurer $132.64 and the further sum of $2.55 for the last quarter of the 1938 taxes, and that a deed was issued to Woodring. The deed shows on its face that the grantee paid the total sum of $135.19 as consideration.

The trial court in its memorandum of facts and conclusions of law found that the notice of resale was in proper form except that it contained the words:

“However, the bidder must pay the last quarter of the 1938 tax in addition to the' listed price.”,

and that in this regard the notice was defective because it required the payment of taxes not delinquent.

In this, the trial court was in error.

The notice, showing that the property was being sold for delinquent and unpaid taxes for the years 1930-1937 and the first three quarterly installments of 1938, was in compliance with 68 O.S.1941 § 432b (Laws of 1939), to-wit:

“The County Treasurer shall give notice of the resale of such real estate by publication thereof once a week for four consecutive weeks preceding'such sale, in some newspaper, having been continuously published one hundred four (104) consecutive weeks with admission to the United States Mails as second class mail matter, with paid circulation and published in the county where delivered to the mails in the county to be designated by the Treasurer; and if there be no paper published in the county, or publication is refused, he shall give notice by written or printed notice posted on the door of the courthouse. Such notice shall contain a description of the real estate to be sold, the name of the owner of said real estate as shown by the last tax rolls in the office of the County Treasurer, the time and place of sale,, a statement of the date on which said real estate was sold to the county for delinquent taxes, the year or years for' which taxes have been assessed but remain unpaid, and that the same has not been redeemed for the period of two years from the date of sale, the total amount of all delinquent taxes,, costs, penalties and interest accrued, due, and unpaid on the same, and that such real estate will be sold to the highest bidder for cash. 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.”

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Day v. Hart
1956 OK 123 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1956)
Hazelrigg v. American Fidelity & Casualty Co.
128 F. Supp. 40 (W.D. Oklahoma, 1955)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1953 OK 230, 261 P.2d 212, 1953 Okla. LEXIS 509, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woodring-v-morris-okla-1953.