Yetter v. Gallatin Co.

Montana Supreme Court

Yetter v. Gallatin Co.

DecidedMay 17, 1982

Docket81-184

StatusPublished

This text of Yetter v. Gallatin Co. (Yetter v. Gallatin Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Montana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Yetter v. Gallatin Co., (Mo. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

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 Yellow-

s 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 county-

t 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, pur-

chaser'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 :

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

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 Yellow-

s 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 county-

t 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, pur-

chaser'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 :

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Yetter v. Gallatin Co., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yetter-v-gallatin-co-mont-1982.

Opinion

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 -

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack