Baker v. State Land Office Bd.

• Decision Date: 06 September 1940
• Docket Number: Motion No. 471.
• Citation: 294 Mich. 587,293 N.W. 763
• Parties: BAKER v. STATE LAND OFFICE BOARD et al.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

294 Mich. 587

293 N.W. 763

BAKER

v.STATE LAND OFFICE BOARD et al.

Motion No. 471.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Sept. 6, 1940.

Original proceeding by Harry H. Baker against the State Land Office Board of the State of Michigan, Conservation Department of the State of Michigan, Auditor General of the State of Michigan, and Treasurer of the State of Michigan, for a writ of mandamus to compel repayment to plaintiff of moneys paid to state land office board in the purchase of certain realty.

Writ denied.

Argued before the Entire Bench.

A. J. Michelson, of Flint, for plaintiff.

Thomas Read, Atty. Gen., and Edmund E. Shepherd, Peter Bradt, John Panchuk, Andrew Demaggio, and Kenneth G. Prettie, Asst. Attys. Gen., for defendants.

Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone, Yerkes, Goddard & McClintock, and Berry & Stevens, all of Detroit, amici curiae.

Charles L. Wilson, Pros. Atty., by Harry J.Merritt, Corp. Counsel, both of Pontiac, for County of Oakland, amici curiae favoring constitutionality.

McALLISTER, Justice.

Plaintiff filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in this court to compel repayment to him of moneys paid to the State land office board in the purchase of certain real estate. He contends that the State did not have a valid title to the lands sold, and that the statute under which the sale was made is unconstitutional.

Prior to the 1938 sale of tax-delinquent lands in Genesee county and throughout the statutory period of redemption, plaintiff held title in fee to certain subdivision lots in Burton township included in the list of properties affected by the petition of the auditor general for the sale of tax-delinquent lands in compliance with requirements of section 61 of the general property tax law of this State (Act No. 206, § 61, Pub.Acts 1893, 1 Comp.Laws 1929, § 3452), as then amended by Act No. 91, Pub.Acts 1937. Plaintiff filed no objections to the petition of the auditor general and, at the annual sale held in May, 1938, in the absence of private bids, according to the terms of the decree and the law in such case provided (see 1 Comp.Laws 1929, §§ 3451-3467, Comp.Laws Supp. 1940, §§ 3451-3467; Stat.Ann. §§ 7.104-7.120), title to the lots here in question became vested in the State, subject to plaintiff's right to redeem within 18 months. This privilege of redemption was not exercised, and on November 3, 1939, the right ceased to exist.

Act No. 155, Pub.Acts 1937, effective July 3, 1937, created the State land office board and entrusted to its jurisdiction the disposition and sale of those lands in a specified southern portion of counties in lower Michigan, absolute title to which had become vested in the State after the effective date of the act. This law was later amended by Acts Nos. 29, 244 and 329, Pub.Acts 1939 (Comp.Laws Supp.1940, §§ 3723-1 to 3723-14).

Under section 7 of the State land office board act, as amended, the sale of lands within the board's jurisdiction was to begin February 13, 1940, and to include only such lands, the absolute title to which had vested in the State. Plaintiff's lots were affected by this sale, and he availed himself of the privilege accorded former owners by section 7 of the act, and repurchased his property for the sum of $50, that being the highest bid.

On March 11, 1940, the land office board executed and delivered to plaintiff, who accepted it, a quit-claim deed conveying to him title in fee to the property formerly owned by him. On March 12, 1940, plaintiff tendered to the State land office board the quit-claim deed so received and accepted by him, offered to reconvey the property to the State of Michigan, and demanded return of the sum of $50 paid as consideration. The State land office board refused to comply with these demands, and plaintiff filed his petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the board to refund the purchase money and accept reconveyance of the lands in controversy. An order to show cause issued, to which defendants filed return.

For a proper understanding of the case, a preliminary statement with regard to the legislative background and history of the statutes in question may illuminate the issues involved.

Between the years 1920 and 1930 speculative activities in real estate in the State, unrestrained by normal caution and on a scale unparalleled, had resulted in platting of subdivisions with building lots sold at highly inflated prices. The same exaggeration seeped into farm lands and business properties in cities. During this period municipalities and their officials encouraged the speculative movement by approval, in undeveloped areas, of widespread improvements, including sewer extensions, sidewalks, and pavements. The entire movement was pervaded by an enthusiasm uncolored by moderation. But all of these plans and hopes collapsed under the pitiless and inexorable advance of economic depression, of which this court has on several occasions taken judicial notice. Schnitz v. Grand River Avenue Development Co., 271 Mich. 253, 259 N.W. 900;Pesciarelli v. Trestain, 288 Mich. 89, 284 N.W. 656. Vestiges of these shattered dreams of wealth survive in spectral outlines of cities now crumbling to ruin in remote country fields, and the omniscient eye of retrospection finds it is easy to survey the past and call it unwise.

The result of this activity was that taxes, on excessively high assessments, became delinquent and accumulated in amount until they greatly exceeded the assessed valuation. For approximately six years subsequent to 1932, no tax sales were held; moratorium statutes were passed by the legislature, embodying waiver of interest and penalty charges, and providing for payment of taxes in installments covering a 10-year period; but such efforts to effect payment were in vain, and the unpaid taxes accumulated, until in some counties they exceeded five times the amount of the assessed valuation of the property. Planning commissions, which occupied themselves with a possible solution of the problem, were appointed by the governor, and concluded that the various plans to remedy the situation had failed to stop the abandonment of tax-delinquent land; and legislative committees made exhaustive studies, in an effort to devise means of overcoming the rapidly growing peril which was assuming catastrophic form. The result was the enactment of Act No. 155, Pub.Acts 1937, and the amendment of the general property tax law by Acts Nos. 114 and 325, Pub.Acts 1937.

Under the provisions of Act No. 155, Pub.Acts 1937, as amended, there was created the State land office board; and, in addition, there was also delegated to the State department of conservation certain powers respecting lands, title to which should become vested in the State. Act No. 155, § 3, Pub.Acts 1937, provides, in part: ‘All land the title to which shall be vested in the state of Michigan by virtue of any tax sale after the effective date of this act [July 3, 1937], lying in those counties north of and including the counties of Oceana, Newaygo, Mecosta, Isabella, Midland, and Arenac, whether said land is occupied or unoccupied, shall be under the control and jurisdiction of the department of conservation. All other land the title to which shall be vested in the state of Michigan by virtue of any tax sale after the effective date of this act, whether occupied or unoccupied, shall be under the control and jurisdiction of the state land office board.’

Section 6 of this act, as amended, defines the authority, power, and duties of the department of conservation in respect to State-owned land confided to its jurisdiction, and in that connection refers to certain then existing laws as guides to the exercise of such discretion and power, viz., Act No. 206, §§ 127 and 131, Pub.Acts 1893, as amended (Comp.Laws Supp.1940, §§ 3520, 3527), and Act No. 21, Pub.Acts 1873 (2 Comp.Laws 1929, § 5868 et seq.), as amended by Act No. 152, Pub.Acts 1933 (Comp.Laws Supp.1940, §§ 5869, 5870; Stat.Ann. § 13.511 et seq.).

Act No. 155, § 7, Pub.Acts 1937, as amended, prescribes the duties and defines the power of the newly created State land office board over State-owned lands confided to its jurisdiction and control, and sets up in detail the administrative machinery for the annual so-called ‘scavenger sale’ of such lands, beginning on the second Tuesday of February of each year and continuing from day to day until all the parcels have been sold. The act expires, however, in 1944 (Act No. 155, § 14, Pub.Acts 1937, as amended).

The pertinent provisions of the general property tax law, as amended, concern the sale and redemption period of tax-delinquent property.

It is claimed by petitioner that the title of the general property tax law, as amended, is not sufficiently broad to cover the provisions of the act, as amended; that Act No. 155, Pub.Acts 1937, known as the State land office board act, as amended, is an ex post facto law; that it impairs the obligations of contract; that the title to such amended act is not sufficiently broad to cover the purposes therein set forth; that the State land office board act, in arbitrarily dividing the State into two distinct parts for the purpose of application of the law, resulted in discrimination and unlawful classification, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and of the Constitution of Michigan, 1908, art. 2, § 1.

The title of the general property tax law, as amended, Pub.Acts 1939, No. 37, reads: ‘An Act to provide for the assessment of property and the levy and collection of taxes thereon, and for the collection of taxes heretofore and hereafter levied; making such taxes a lien on the lands taxed, establishing and continuing such lien, providing for the sale and conveyance of lands delinquent for taxes and for the inspection and disposition of lands bid off to the state and not redeemed or purchased; and to repeal Act No. 200 of the Public Acts of 1891, and all other acts and parts of acts in anywise...