Baldwin v. Frisbie

• Citation: 270 P. 1025,149 Wash. 294
• Decision Date: 08 October 1928
• Docket Number: 21094.
• Parties: BALDWIN v. FRISBIE et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Washington

270 P. 1025

149 Wash. 294

BALDWIN v. FRISBIE et al.

No. 21094.

Supreme Court of Washington

October 8, 1928

Department 2.

Appeal from Superior Court, Yakima County; V. O. Nichoson, Judge.

Action by Everett M. Baldwin against Alice Owen Frisbie and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Reversed and remanded, with direction to dismiss the action.

William B. Bridgman, of Sunnyside, for appellants.

Frank J. Allen, of Yakima, for respondent.

MAIN, J.

This action was brought to quiet title to certain real property as against the lien of a drainage improvement district assessment. The cause was tried to the court without a jury and resulted in a judgment as prayed for by the plaintiff from which the defendants appeal.

The facts are stipulated. The property in question is located in a drainage improvement district in Yakima county. August 29 1925, Yakima county purchased the property at public sale pursuant to a foreclosure for general taxes. This foreclosure made no mention of drainage improvement district assessments and the deed conveying the property to the county made no mention thereof. April 3, 1926, the county offered the property at public sale, and it was purchased by the respondent. The notice of sale provided that the property would be sold 'subject to all local improvement taxes or assessments which are now or may hereafter become a lien against said property.' Whether the property was offered for sale for the amount of the general taxes, for which the same was struck off to the county at the prior sale, together with all drainage district assessments and supplemental assessments, does not appear. Neither is there any fact stated which shows that the board of county commissioners elected to sell the property for less than the amount of the general taxes and the drainage assessments due at the time of the resale. The deed by the county conveying the property to the respondent simply recites the amount of the consideration paid to be $275.10.

There is no controversy here as to any drainage improvement district assessment which became due prior to the sale by the county to the respondent. It is the lien of the assessments coming due after the purchase by the respondent that is involved in this proceeding. The respondent says that he took the property free and clear from any such assessments. The appellants contend that he took it subject to the lien of the assessments which became due subsequent to the time the property was conveyed to him. The answer to this question involves a consideration of the pertinent statutory requirements.

Section 4439-3, Rem. Comp. Stat. 1927 Supp., which section was a part of chapter 46 of the Laws of 1923, among other things, provides:

'* * * Any property in any drainage or diking or sewerage improvement district sold under foreclosure for general taxes shall remain subject to the lien of all drainage and diking or sewerage improvement district assessments or installments thereof not yet due at the time of the decree of foreclosure and the complaint, decree of foreclosure, order of sale, sale, certificate of sale and deed shall so state.'

Here is an express declaration on the part of the Legislature that the property, when sold for general taxes, shall remain subject to the lien of all drainage assessments not due at the time of the foreclosure. The fact that the foreclosure proceedings by which the county acquired title and the deed to it made no mention of the drainage assessments does not pass the title to the property to the county free and clear thereof, when the statute says that it shall be taken subject to the drainage assessments not then due. The failure of the proper officers to foreclose for the general taxes, subject to the drainage improvement assessment, cannot have the effect of conveying to the county a greater title than that authorized by the Legislature. The county's title must rest upon the statutory requirements, and not upon a failure of the proper officers to comply therewith. It then seems clear that the county took the property subject to the drainage improvement assessment not due at the time it acquired title. This brings us to the question as to what kind of a title was conveyed by the county to the respondent.

Section 4439-4, Rem. Comp. Stat. 1927 Supp., which was also a part of chapter 46 of the Laws of 1923, provides that property subject to a drainage improvement district assessment acquired by the county pursuant to a foreclosure and sale for general taxes, when offered for sale by the county,

'shall be offered for the amount of the general taxes for which the same was struck off to the county, together with all drainage or diking or sewerage improvement district assessments or installments thereof, due at the time of such resale, including maintenance assessments, and supplemental assessments

...