OCR Text |
Show MONDAY. FEBRUARY 11, 1974 TNI RECORD DAILY PAGE TWENTY-THRE- E i In the SuDreme Court of the State of T Jtah Quiet Title Action Reversed "What happened to the lien? We eliminatod ft' Huntington City, a municipal corporation, Plaintiff and Appellant, this court held that since the real property in question was transferred to a pt entity prior to assessment and levy, there was no tax due on it even though it was owned by a taxable entity on January 1, 1958. tax-exem- uys diiMithiy opinion While that case involved taxes and the instant case has to do with title, we think the Iron County case is directly in point. It held that the tax was invalid. The defendant's claim of title has to be based upon the validity of her tax title. If the tax on the land for which the sale was made is invalid, then the sale is void, and the defendant got no title by her tax deed. No. 13150 v. FILED January 31, 1974 C. W. Peterson, Defendant and Respondent. The old case of Gillmor v. Dale4 also held that when land was disconnected from a municipality after the lien date but before levy and assessment by the municipality,- there would be no' tax lien upon it. L. M. Cuxnmings, Clerk - ELLETT. Justice; 3. 4. This appeal is from a judgment quieting title in the respondent tract of land in Emery County, Utah, lying (defendant) to a forty-acr- e to the contiguous city limits of the City of Huntington in said county. Before the holder of a tax deed can deprive the record owner of land, the burden is upon him to establish his title by showing that the tax and all proceedings in connection therewith were strictly according to the statute.5 Huntington City received a warranty deed to the land in question on April 7, 1959, and thereafter the property was not subject to taxes. 1 ;v . matter the respondent has not shown that the assessment and levy of the tax for the year 1959 were made prior to the tim vAen the city acquired its title. It thus appears that the plaintiff in this case owns the land In this Section U. C.A. 1953, requires the county assessor prior f to April 15 of each year to assess all property within his county to the owner thereof as of January 1 at twelve o'clock noon. A tax upon real property is a lien against the property assessed and attaches as of January 1 of each year. 2 59-5-- 4, f The record does not show that there was any assessment made the by county assessor prior to the sale to the city. While the deed to the city was not placed of record until May 21, 1959, the ownership by the city was effective when the deed was delivered. The recordation of a deed is of no importance insofar as the passing of title is concerned except where an innocent third party may purchase, mortgage, etcv for value from the seller. which has served for many years as its "city dump" and that the defendant has no valid claim or interest therein. The judgment is reversed and the case remanded with directions to quiet title to the city dump in the appellant. No costs are awarded. " 3 . R. L. Tuckrtt, Justice 5. Fivas v.Petersen, 5 Utah 2d 280, 300 P. 2d 635 (1956). 6. The dissent queries "What become of the lien. " The answer is "It died aborning. " The Emery County assessor assessed the land to the grantee of the deed to the city, and the levy for taxes wa c .nade in August following No taxes were assessed thereafter. However, the county made a preliminary sale of the property in question for 1959 delinquent taxes on January 10, HENRIOD. Justice: 1960. notice was ever given to the city of the purported delinquencies, and on May 26, 1964, a tax deed was issued by the county to Mrs. C. W. Peterson for the sum of $3.44. No : The city purchased the land for use as a garbage dump, and such has been its use ever since. While the city does not operate a garbage collection system, its citizens have used the dump, and the city has maintained the road into the dump and has expended money in covering the garbage refuse as occasion required. The city has expended money in con lien attaches to "the property assessed" under Title 1 U. C.A. 1953. as of the previous first of JanuaTy. A preliminary sale for the 1959 taxes was made on January 10, I960. The assessment appears to have been valid, as was the preliminary sale, after which the property was sold in accordance with the statutory requirements, at the 1964 May sale, to the defendant here, who received her tax deed from the county on June 15, 1964, recorded June 16, 1964. Thereafter she paid the taxes on the property within the required times through 1971, after which this suit was filed on March 20, 1972. nection therewith as follows: 0 January, 1969 January, 19J&9 September, .1972 $202.00 16.00 6.25 39.00 32.00 37.50 45.00 51.20- 59-10-- 3, There was a conflict in the evidence as to possession of the property but .it appears clearly from believable evidence that "no dumping" and ''no trespassing" signs persisted on the property though the city claimed its use for a dump. Defendant, not plaintiff, paid the taxes after the May 1964 ' 12.00,, - The respondent claims that the city is barred from its claim to title by ' which reads: Utah Parks Co. v. Iron County, 14 Utah 2d 178, 380 P. 2d 924 (1963). May sale, c and claimed possession, which was supported by other substantial evidence, leading to the spurt's finding that the defendant was in possession. 1. No action or defense for the recovery or possession of real, property or to quiet title or determine the ownership thereof shall be commenced pr interposed against the holder of a tax title after the expiration of four years from the date of the sale, conveyance or transfer of such tax title to any county, or directly to any other purchase thereof at any public or private tax sale. . .. Besides the above, the defendant followed the statutory requirements necessary to perfect a tax title, and the procedure followed was not assailed successfully, - so that the appropriate statutes, under the facts of this case, effectively should bar plaintiff's action here, as .limitations statutes of repose in the area of settling land ownership. The city relies on a proviso in that section which says: U. C.A. (1953) as stated above, provides that every Section tax upon real property is a lien against property assessed and attaches as of the first day of January of each year. Section 59-5provides that the county assessor must assess the property by the fifteenth day of April of the same Provided, however, that this section shall not bar any action or defense by the owner of the legal title to such property where he or his predecessor has actually occupied or been in actual possession of such property within four years from the commencement or interposition of such action or defense. found that the respondent was in possession of the propertj and was entitled to a judgment quieting title in her. It did not find that the plaintiff had not been in possession during the four years prior to suit. In fact, the ' evidence would not support such a finding. ' 0 of statute the not barred the is that conclude by city We, therefore, The Appeal from a judgment quieting title to land in defendant on a counterclaim in a suit filed by the plaintiff seeking a judgment to quiet title in the latter. I dissent and would affirm the trial court on simple review authored many times by this court, particprinciples of appellate ularly with respect to findings of fact of the trial court. Plaintiff obtained a warranty deed from one Howard, record owner, on April 7, 1959. No one claimed that thu county assessor did not assess the property before April 15, 1959, to Howard, the then record title holder, 4, Utah Cod which assessment complied completely with Title Annotated, 1953. Such assessment was valid and plaintiff adduced no evidence to the contrary. After such assessment, and on May 21, 1959. after the significant April 15th date, the plaintiff recorded its deed. A 59-10-- October, 1968 (Dissenting) 59-5-- 1. Article XIII, Sec. 2, Constitution of Utah. 3, U.C.A. 1953. 2. Section September, 1966 .?, J. Allan Crockett, Justice Until levy and assessment are made, there is no tax lien on realty; but when made, the tax relates back to the owner as of noon, January 1st . of the taxable year. Nielson Bros. Construction Nielson Bros. Construction Ferris Grange Nielson Bros. Construction Nielson Bros. Construction Nielson Construction Co. Nielson Construction Co. Scott McArthur DcanAtwood ' WE CONCUR: The rate of tax to be levied and collected by the state must be set during the first week of August of each year and by the counties between the last Monday in July and the second Monday in August of each year. November, 1959 November, I960 November, 1962 March, 1964 14 Utah 2d 178, 380 P. 2d 924 (1963). 27 Utah 372, 75 P. 932 (1904). 59-10- -4 year. trial court . limitation from asserting its claim to the land. The respondent further claims that her tax title is good and that the city lost its interest in the land by failing to pay the taxes for the year 1959. We think that the case of Utah Parks Company v. Iron County, et al, is controlling in this matter. In that case, realty owned by Utah Parks Company on January 1, 1958, was sold to Cedar City on January 31, 1958. Cedar City, like the plaintiff herein, was a municipal corporation. In that case tax-exem- pt -3, , ' ' The majority opinion does not dispute the time of attachment of the tax lien upon the property. It says that: "A tax lien upon real property is a lien against the property assessed and attaches as of January 1st of each year. " However, it reaches a final conclusion in the case through a series of novel, steps outlined below; A. It is conceded as noted above that a tax lien attached to the property as of January 1st of the year in question under Section 50-10-- 3. It states without citing any authority that: "Until levy and assessment are made, there is no lien on realty." Indeed, it is curious does not impose such requirements for attachment of that Section valid lien. E 59-10- -3 C. It concludes that since the ausebbment and levy of the lax a |