Sears v. Calaveras County

Decision Date15 November 1955
Citation45 Cal.2d 518,289 P.2d 425
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
PartiesHarry SEARS, Trustee, and Nevada Investment and Finance Corporation, a corporation, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. COUNTY OF CALAVERAS, State of California, George G. Braddock, A. J. Gianelli, Marvin L. Waters, Frank A. Crespi, Claude T. Smith, Frank Langford and Board of Supervisors of Calaveras County, Defendants and Respondents. Sac. 6332.

Francis T. Cornish, Berkeley, for appellants.

Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., E. G. Benard and Irving H. Perluss, Asst. Attys. Gen., Edward P. Hollingshead, Deputy Atty. Gen., and Joseph S. Huberty, San Andreas, for respondents.

SHENK, Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment for the defendants following an order sustaining their demurrers without leave to amend.

The main purpose of the action is to have it declared that a deed issued to the State of California for delinquent ad valorem taxes for the fiscal year 1935-1936 is invalid. The real property consists of patented mining claims on four parcels of land and the minerals underlying another parcel.

It is alleged that the Calaveras Central Mining Corporation was the owner of the property on and prior to the first Monday in March, 1935; that on November 20, 1928, the corporation conveyed the property to one K. W. Cannon, as trustee, under a deed of trust recorded on December 4, 1928, for the benefit of one Helen Roesch in order to secure payment of money loaned to the corporation; that by virtue of that instrument Cannot was empowered to sell the property to satisfy the corporation's obligation to Roesch in the event of default, and that on February 9, 1938, the then trustee, Frank A. Trachsler sold the real property and improvements to one John S. DeLancey, who thereupon became the owner thereof and declared himself, prior to August 8, 1940, to hold the property in trust under the terms of a judgment of the Calaveras County Superior Court. The plaintiff Sears derives his title through John S. DeLancey as trustee by substitution effected on September 23, 1944, after the death of DeLancey. The interest of the plaintiff Nevada Investment and Finance Corporation stems from its purchase, as trustee, of all the placer gold in place in the five parcels of property from Sears on October 10, 1944.

It is further alleged that the Assessor of Calaveras County assessed these five parcels of real property separately for the year 1935-1936 and that the total ad valorem taxes levied for that year amounted to $750.50. The taxes were not paid and the property was sold to the state on June 29, 1936. There was no redemption. On July 2, 1943, the Tax Collector executed and recorded a deed to the state. It is alleged and therefore an admitted fact that the plaintiffs were in the exclusive and undisputed possession of the property during all of the times involved.

The plaintiffs seek the annulment of the tax deed on the ground that the tax proceeding supporting the right of the county to deed the property to the state and the deed itself were invalid. They assert that the tax levied against the property exceeded the lawful rate levied generally in the county for 1935-1936; that the purchase price for which the property was sold to the state exceeded the legal amount, and that the separate parcels were improperly sold and deeded to the state as a single unit.

The defendants interposed demurrers alleging that the action is barred by the limitations contained in sections 175 and 3521 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. Section 175, enacted in 1945, provides that 'All deeds heretofore and hereafter issued to the State of California * * * by reason of delinquency of property taxes or assessments levied by any taxing agency or revenue district, shall be conclusively presumed to be valid unless held to be invalid in an appropriate proceeding in a court of competent jurisdiction to determine the validity of said deed commenced within one year after the execution of said deed, or within one year after the effective date of this section, whichever be later.' Section 3521 provides that 'A proceeding based on an alleged invalidity or irregularity of any deed to the State for taxes or of any proceedings leading up to the deed can only be commenced within one year after the date of recording of the deed to the State in the county recorder's office or within one year after June 1, 1941, whichever is later.' Both of these sections are statutes of limitation. People v. Chambers, 37 Cal.2d 552, 233 P.2d 557; McCaslin v. Hamblen, 37 Cal.2d 196, 231 P.2d 1; Tannhauser v. Adams, 31 Cal.2d 169, 187 P.2d 716; Sheeter v. Lifur, 113 Cal.App.2d 729, 249 P.2d 336. The defendants argue that the action is barred because the plaintiffs filed their complaint in 1948, more than one year after the enactment of section 175 and more than one year after the tax deed was executed and ordered. It is obvious that if these sections are applicable the plaintiffs are precluded from asserting the invalidity of the tax deed in this action. The plaintiffs contend, however, that the sections do not foreclose an owner in exclusive and undisputed possession of the taxed property from attacking the asserted validity of the deed. The contention is based upon implications which they draw from the opinions of this court in Tannhauser v. Adams, supra, 31 Cal.2d 169, 187 P.2d 716, and McCaslin v. Hamblen, 37 Cal.2d 196, 231 P.2d 1.

The contention that a statute limiting the time for the commencement of an action to set aside a deed to the state for delinquent taxes does not apply to an owner in exclusive and undisputed possession of the property taxed, is largely based on a rule stated to be that a general statute of limitations does not run against such an owner to remove a cloud upon his title. It may be assumed that such is the general rule. See Maguire v. Hibernia Savings & Loan Soc., 23 Cal.2d 719, 146 P.2d 673, 151 A.L.R. 1062; Newport v. Hatton, 195 Cal. 132, 231 P. 987; Secret Valley Land Co. v. Perry, 187 Cal. 420, 202 P. 449; San Francisco Unified School Dist. v. City and County of San Francisco, 54 Cal.App.2d 105, 128 P.2d 696; Crane v. French, 39 Cal.App.2d 642, 104 P.2d 53; Faria v. Bettencourt, 100...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 cases
  • Hood River County v. Dabney
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • February 15, 1967
    ...772, 31 Cal.Rptr. 915 (1963); Howard v. State of California, 216 Cal.App.2d 281, 30 Cal.Rptr. 708 (1963); Sears v. County of Calaveras, 45 Cal.2d 518, 289 P.2d 425 (1955); Elbert, Ltd. v. Gross, 41 Cal.2d 322, 260 P.2d 35 (1953); Tannhauser v. Adams, 31 Cal.2d 169, 187 P.2d 716, 5 A.L.R.2d ......
  • Philbrick v. Huff
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • July 30, 1976
    ...that section 3521 and its counterpart section 175 3 have been termed 'special' statutes of limitation (see Sears v. County of Calaveras, 45 Cal.2d 518, 521, 289 P.2d 425 (app. dissm'd.351 U.S. 959, 76 S.Ct. 1026, 100 L.Ed. 1481)) that are applicable, as against even owners in possession, wh......
  • Amigos De Bolsa Chica, Inc. v. Signal Properties, Inc.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • April 21, 1983
    ...Turner v. People of the State of New York (1897) 168 U.S. 90, 93-94 [18 S.Ct. 38, 40, 42 L.Ed.2d 392, 393]; Sears v. County of Calaveras (1955) 45 Cal.2d 518, 520, 289 P.2d 425; McCaslin v. Hamblen (1951) 37 Cal.2d 196, 198, 231 P.2d 1.) And it is this statutory provision as well as the gen......
  • Shaffer v. Mareve Oil Corp., 13325
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • May 3, 1974
    ...this, we believe, more rationally and have decided that possession is not necessary to start the statute running. Sears v. County of Calaveras, 45 Cal.2d 518, 289 P.2d 425; George F. Weaver Sons Company v. Burgess, Supra; Dunkum v. Maceck Building Corp., 256 N.Y. 275, 176 N.E. The short sta......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT