City of Detroit v. Sitter, 90.

• Decision Date: 04 April 1939
• Docket Number: No. 90.,90.
• Citation: 285 N.W. 40,288 Mich. 505
• Parties: CITY OF DETROIT et al. v. SITTER.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

288 Mich. 505

285 N.W. 40

CITY OF DETROIT et al.

v.SITTER.

No. 90.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

April 4, 1939.

Suit by the City of Detroit and another against Fred R. Sitter for declaration of rights involving the construction and validity of certain sections of the charter of the City of Detroit. From the decree, plaintiffs and defendant appeal.

Affirmed in part; vacated in part.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County, in Chancery; Lester S. Moll, judge.

Argued before the Entire Bench.

Raymond J. Kelly, Corp. Counsel, and John H. Witherspoon, Assistant Corp. Counsel, both of Detroit, for plaintiffs.

Sweetman G. Smith, of Detroit, for defendant.

BUSHNELL, Justice.

The decree from which both parties have appealed has to do with the construction and validity of sections 11, 19, and 21 of title 6, chapter 4, of the charter of the City of Detroit as amended in 1933 and 1935.

See, also, City of Detroit v. Safety Investment Company, Mich., 285 N.W. 42, decided herewith.

Defendant Sitter purchased certain property at the state and county tax sale held in May of 1938. At the time of the purchase there were delinquent city taxes and assessments against the property for the years 1932 to 1937, inclusive, in the sum or approximately $315. These unpaid taxes had been bid in by the city, but foreclosure of the city's tax lien had not been instituted. Defendant advised the city that he would serve a notice to redeem from the state and county tax title purchase and that failure to redeem would be considered a discharge of the city's unpaid tax and assessment lien. Because of the different views entertained by the parties with respect to the decision of this court in Hoffman v. Otto, 277 Mich. 437, 269 N.W. 225, 226, he city filed its petition for declaration of rights.

The circuit court held:

‘(1) That the purchase by the Defendant at the sale of State and County tax delinquent lands in May, 1938, or the subsequent purchase of a State bid made at said sale, is made subject to the tax and assessment liens upon the same property held by the City of Detroit; that failure upon the part of the City of Detroit, or any one in interest, to redeem from the purchase by the defendant does not in any manner affect the tax or assessment liens existing upon the property and held by the City of Detroit.

‘(2) That in the event that the City of Detroit has completed the foreclosure of any tax or assessment liens as provided by the Charter, said City insofar as said foreclosed lien is concerned is subject to the rule of law that tax title interests take priority in the reverse order of other liens and said City must, if it desires to protect its foreclosed lien, take the necessary steps by redemption, payment or otherwise, to preserve its interest as regards a subsequent tax title.’

Defendant seeks reversal because of claimed error in the first holding of the court and plaintiff seeks reversal of the second holding.

We quote the following from the decree: ‘In October, 1933, the tax collection provisions of the Charter of the City of Detroit were amended so that the unpaid tax lien of the City of Detroit would during the year following the time the same became due and payable be sold to the City of Detroit by bid of the Controller thereof unless directed by the Common Council to be sold to private purchasers; said Charter, as amended, further providing that the City shall have the right to foreclose its tax lien thus bid in by appropriate chancery proceedings to be begun two years after the bid of the City, said foreclosure proceedings to ultimately result in vesting absolute title to the property in the City, if redemption is not effected during the period provided. It further appearing to the court that the unpaid tax and assessment lien of the City of Detroit for the years 1933 to 1937, inclusive, has been bid in by said City, said liens being held by the City unforeclosed. The property also has been bid in by the City for a period of ninety-nine years for the delinquent 1932 taxes thereon, under the old procedure provided in the Charter prior to its amendment in October, 1933.’

In Hoffman v. Otto the grantee of a state tax deed purchaser filed a bill to quiet title to lands in the city of Detroit, plaintiff Hoffman contending that the tax deed which she held, and the failure of the city to redeem upon notice, destroyed the general and special tax livies and the interest of the city in the property for the years 1927 and 1928, plaintiff's predecessor in title having purchased the property for unpaid state and county taxes for the year 1928. In discussing the...