Board of County Com'rs of Choctaw County v. Schuessler, 38901
| Decision Date | 13 December 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 38901,38901 |
| Parties | BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF CHOCTAW COUNTY, Oklahoma, and Lawrence Massengale, County Treasurer of Choctaw County, Oklahoma, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Jimmie E. SCHUESSLER and Zoe Schuessler Lee, Defendants in Error. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. When a county purchases property at an ad valorem tax resale, it does not take and hold the property in its proprietary capacity but in trust for the benefit of the political sub-divisions of the State which are entitled to share in ad valorem taxes levied against the property. A subsequent sale of the property by the county is but a part of the statutory tax-collecting process provided for the enforcement of tax liens, the collection of delinquent taxes and the apportionment thereof to interested political sub-divisions.
2. Under the facts of this case, the Board of County Commissioners was without power or authority to reserve, in a deed evidencing the sale of property acquired by the county at a previous resale, the property rights that it attempted to reverse.
3. Under the facts of this case, plaintiffs' action was not barred by the statutes of limitation.
Appeal from the District Court of Choctaw County; Howard Phillips, Judge.
Action by plaintiffs to quiet title to land acquired from Choctaw County at an ad valorem tax sale thereof following such a resale to said county. From judgment for plaintiffs, defendants appeal. Affirmed.
Ralph K. Jenner, County Atty., of Choctaw County, Hugo, for plaintiffs in error.
Hal Welch, Hugo, for defendants in error.
The parties who appear here in reverse order to their appearance below, will be referred to herein as they appeared in the trial court.
In this action plaintiffs seek to quiet their title as to defendants (and others who are not parties to this appeal) to the following described land lying in Choctaw County, Oklahoma:
SW/4 of Sec. 2; and SE/4 of NW/4; SW/4 of NE/4; W/2 of NE/4 of NE/4; E/2 of NW/4 of NE/4; and SW/4 of NW/4 of NE/4, Sec. 10, all in Twp. 5 South, Range 13 East.
From order of the trial court denying defendants' motion for a new trial, which was directed to a judgment in plaintiffs' favor, defendants appeal.
Plaintiffs base their asserted title to the above described property upon a sale of same by Choctaw County to Carl Schuessler following the former's acquisition of the property at a tax resale. The deeds issued pursuant to the sales were under date of July 2, 1951, which deeds were recorded by agents of Choctaw County prior to being delivered to Schuessler. Schuessler acquired the land in order to convey same to plaintiffs. The conveyances to plaintiffs were apparently made in 1951. Plaintiffs have been in possession of the land in controversy since 1951.
In each of the referred-to deeds it was provided in substance that Choctaw County reserved one-fourth of the minerals underlying the land and 25 feet on each side of the section line for road purposes. Defendants assert that said reservations are valid and that neither Schuessler nor plaintiffs acquired title to property rights so reserved.
On June 2, 1947, which was after the above described land had been first sold to Choctaw County for delinquent ad valorem taxes, the Board of County Commissioners of Choctaw County (hereafter referred to as 'Commissioners') promulgated a resolution to the effect that from and after said date a one-fourth interest in all minerals underlying lands acquired from Choctaw County by a resale tax deed would be reserved by said County. The resolution was entered on the 'Journal' of the County Clerk. No mention of intent to reserve a right-of-way in lands sold by the County at resale was made in this or any other resolution.
Defendants contend that it was within the power and province of the Commissioners to promulgate the referred-to resolution. In support of said contention, defendants cite 19 O.S.1951 §§ 1, 2, 3, 339, 342, 343, 344, which statutes treat generally with the powers of counties and the commissioners thereof, and 68 O.S.1951 §§ 432i and 432j, which statutes treat with the powers and duties of commissioners relative to management of property acquired by a county pursuant to resale thereof and to the subsequent sale of same. Defendants stress the provisions of Sec. 1, supra, to the effect that each county is a body corporate and as such is empowered 'to sell and convey any real or personal estate owned by the county, and make such order respecting the same as may be deemed conducive to the interest of the inhabitants'. After referring to Secs. 342, 343 and 344 granting commissioners the power to sell unused land of counties, defendants refer to Secs. 432i and 432j, supra, and conclude, as we understand defendants' argument, that since the county owned the land in controversy it could, upon sale of same, reserve the property rights which it attempted to reserve.
Defendants contend further that plaintiffs at no time had title to the interest in the land that commissioners sought to reserve, and for said reason cannot maintain this action as to defendants. Defendants refer to the fact that said interests were reserved in the deed to Schuessler and that Schuessler in his deed to plaintiffs excepted the interests. The last referred-to deed is not in evidence, and the foregoing contention based thereon was neither raised nor presented in the trial court. On repeated occasions we have held that in considering issues presented on appeal, we are confined to the record. See Progress Brewing Co. et al. v. Thompson et al., 203 Okl. 415, 222 P.2d 748, and cited cases.
The defendants also contend that plaintiffs' action is barred by the statutes of limitation.
Plaintiffs contend that the Commissioners were without power or authority to promulgate the referred-to resolution or to reserve the property rights sought to be reserved in the deed to Schuessler and that said rights were therefore conveyed to Schuessler by the resale tax proceedings; that assuming the Commissioners had such power and authority, defendants are not in a position in the instant case to assert same for the reason that (a) in the notice published relative to the sale by the county it was not indicated that the property rights in controversy would be reserved; that (b) at the time the property was sold no announcement was made relative to reserving said rights; that (c) in the report of the sale no mention was made of property rights being reserved; and that (d) 'The resolution of the Board of County Commissioners approving the sale, was without limitation and further specifically directed the execution of a deed: 'conveying the foregoing described property to Carl Schuessler, in as full and complete manner as the County is authorized to convey it''. Plaintiffs further contend that their action is not barred by the statutes of limitation.
It is not claimed that the Commissioners had express statutory authority to either promulgate the resolution or to reserve the property rights that defendants here assert were reserved.
Defendants' contention on the basic issue of whether the Commissioners had power and authority to reserve the property rights that it is here asserted were reserved, is apparently based upon the proposition that while the Commissioners are not by statute expressly granted such power and authority, the statutes cited by defendants develop that Choctaw County is in fact the fee simple owner in its proprietary capacity of all property which Choctaw County acquires at resales, and as the owner, upon resale of same, may reserve any rights therein that the Commissioners wish to reserve. Defendants in their brief suggest 'that the reservations made by (the Commissioners) in the deed was just as effective as if you or I, as individuals, had made the reservation.'
The primary purpose of our ad valorem tax statutes relating to delinquent ad valorem tax liens and the sale of property in satisfaction of such liens, is to recover delinquent ad valorem taxes for the benefit of all political...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hughey v. Grand River Dam Authority
... ... County, Sam C. Fullerton, Judge, ruled summarily for the ... v. Myatt, Okl., 424 P.2d 30, 35 (1967); Board of County Com'rs of Choctaw Co. v. Schuessler, ... ...
-
Broadhurst v. American Colloid Co.
... ... rights in 280 acres 1 of land in Butte County, South Dakota. Defendants' claims are predicated ... King County, 196 Wash. 242, 82 P.2d 536; Board of County Com'rs of Choctaw County v. Schuessler, ... ...
-
Northrip v. Montgomery Ward & Co.
... ... Appeal from District Court, Atoka County"; Lavern Fishel, Trial Judge ... \xC2" ... McAllister, 474 P.2d 940 (Okl., 1970), and Board of County Com'rs of Choctaw Co. v. Scuessler, 358 ... ...
-
Frey v. Independence Fire and Cas. Co., 59091
... ... policy, the District Court, Oklahoma County, William R. Saied, Judge, rendered summary ... McAllister, Okl., 474 P.2d 940 [1970]; Board of County Com'rs of Choctaw Co. v. Schuessler, ... ...