City of Holland v. Fillmore Tp.
| Decision Date | 26 April 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 70,70 |
| Citation | 108 N.W.2d 840,363 Mich. 38 |
| Parties | CITY OF HOLLAND, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. TOWNSHIP OF FILLMORE, Defendant and Appellant, James Boyce, Allegan County Treasurer, Defendant and Appellee. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
James E. Townsend, Holland, for City of Holland, plaintiff and appellee.
John H. Bauckham, Kalamazoo, for defendant fendant and appellant; Jacob A. Dalm, Jr., Kalamazoo, of counsel.
Before the Entire Bench.
This is another case in which we are called on to interpret a provision of the annexation statutes. The problem is accurately set forth in the sole stated question as agreed upon by the parties:
'Where the 1958 taxes on property in Fillmore township personal property of the township within the meaning of MSA 5.2093 on August 3, 1958, the date when a portion of Fillmore township was annexed to the city of Holland, thus requiring the money received from the collection of those taxes to be divided between the township of Fillmore and the city of Holland?'
The trial judge answered this question in the affirmative and awarded appellee city of Holland 46.149% of the 1958 township taxes, in the sum of $7,109.77. The township appeals.
The relevant facts (also agreed on) are:
On August 3, 1958, a portion of Fillmore township, in the county of Allegan, known as the Maplewood area, was annexed to the city of Holland. The election on the annexation issue was approved by the electorate on June 3, 1958. The assessed valuation of the area which was absorbed by the city pursuant to this annexation was 46.149% of the total assessed valuation of Fillmore township. 46.149% of the 1958 township taxes collected amounts to $7,109.77, which amount is claimed by both Fillmore township and the city of Holland.
No dispute exists between Fillmore township and the city of Holland other than this divergent claim arising out of the 1958 township taxes, the township of Fillmore having turned over to the city of Holland all assets and liabilities in the proportion of the valuation of the area annexed to the valuation of the whole township.
It is the contention of the city of Holland that under P.A.1909, No. 279, § 14, as amended (C.L.S.1956, § 117.14 [Stat.Ann.1959 Cum.Supp. § 5.2093]), these 1958 township taxes were part of the personal property of the township on the date annexation became effective and, therefore, should be divided between the city and township, along with the other personal property of the township.
It is the contention of the township that these 1958 taxes had not as yet become personal property of the township on the date of annexation and, therefore, were not subject to division with the city.
It is agreed that January 1, 1958, was the 'tax day' for the year 1958, at which time property located in Fillmore township became subject to township taxes. It is further agreed between the parties that between January 1, 1958, and June 2, 1958, the township supervisor had completed his assessment roll, the township board of review had completed the review of the 1958 assessment roll, the assessment roll was equalized by the county board of supervisors, and that June 2, 1958, was the final date for establishment of a maximum tax rate for townships by the Allegan county tax allocation board.
Subsequent to the date of August 3, 1958, the date upon which the annexation became effective, there still remained the duty of the county board of supervisors of Allegan county to apportion county taxes among cities and townships, and the duty of the supervisor to assess the taxes, as apportioned, at which time, under the statute then existing, the property taxes became a debt to the township. Lastly, it is agreed that on December 1, 1958, the taxes so assessed became a lien on the respective properties of the township.
On December 15, 1959, both municipal corporations filed actions in the circuit court for Allegan county, the township of Fillmore proceeding in an action at law for a writ of mandamus, and the city of Holland proceeding in chancery for an injunction. On February 25, 1960, an order for partial settlement was filed, and the 2 cases combined by agreement, to continue as a case in chancery. On April 1, 1960, the circuit judge for Allegan county entered a written opinion, holding that the 1958 township taxes were personal property and thus subject to division between the city of Holland and the township of Fillmore. From this decision, the township of Fillmore appeals.
The particular statute which is applicable to the present problem is Section 14 of P.A.1909, No. 279, as amended (C.L.S.1956, § 117.14 [Stat.Ann.1959 Cum.Supp. § 5.2093]):
'Whenever a part of a city, village or township is annexed to a city, all of the personal property belonging to any such city, village or township from which territory is detached shall be divided between the township, city or village from which said territory is detached and the city to which the territory is annexed, in the same ratio as the assessed valuation of the taxable property in the territory annexed bears to the assessed valuation of the taxable property in the entire city, village or township from which said territory is taken. * * *
Thus, as indicated in the stated question, decision hinges on the meaning of the term 'personal property.' Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed.), p. 1382, defines the term 'personal property' as follows:
'In broad and general sense, everything that is the subject of ownership, not coming under denomination of real estate.'
American Jurisprudence follows this definition closely:
'* * * in its general or ordinary significance, the term 'personal property' embraces all objects and rights which are capable of ownership except freehold estates in land, and incorporeal hereditaments issuing thereout, or exercisable within the same.' 42 Am.Jur., Property, § 23.
We are not given much assistance on this task by statutory definition. Michigan lists a number of types of property which are included in the term 'personal property,' none of them specifically applicable to a township's interest in its taxes.
There is, however, included in the same section a catchall provision which puts us back where we started:
'All other personal property not herein enumerated, and not especially exempted by law.' C.L.S.1956, § 211.8, subd. 8 (Stat.Ann.1960 Rev. § 7.8 ).
In Township of Royal Oak v. City of Berkley, 309 Mich. 572, 16 N.W.2d 83, this Court held that township accounts receivable were personal property within the meaning of C.L.1929, § 2250, P.A.1931, No. 233 (Stat.Ann. § 5.2093), and said (309 Mich. at page 580, 16 N.W.2d 85):
"Personal property' connotes intangible as well as tangible personal property and must include choses in action.'
These last 2 definitions, however, do not give us much assistance on our present problem.
A 'chose in action' is defined in Black as:
'A right to personal things of which the owner has not the possession, but merely a right of action for their possession.' Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed.), p. 305.
Fillmore township's interest in 1958 taxes was not a chose in action as of the date of annexation of a portion of the township to the city of Holland.
As the law stood at that point, appellant accurately points out that the 1958 taxes were not owing, and were not collectible in a suit at law.
'The taxes thus assessed shall become at once a debt...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Adams Outdoor Advertising v. City of East Lansing
...any right or interest which one has in things movable. [Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed.), p. 1217; see also City of Holland v. Fillmore Twp., 363 Mich. 38, 42, 108 N.W.2d 840 (1961).] The fact that plaintiff's billboards are affixed to the rooftops of the buildings on which they are located......
-
Burkhardt v. Bailey
...things of which the owner has not the possession, but merely a right of action for their possession.'" City of Holland v. Fillmore Twp., 363 Mich. 38, 43, 108 N.W.2d 840 (1961), quoting Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed), p 305. A "thing in action" is synonymous with a "chose in action." See P......
-
McClintock v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue (In re Estate of Pardee)
...respect to the property before the date the lien attaches. 16 See Harrington v. Hillard, supra. Compare City of Holland v. Township of Fillmore, 363 Mich. 38, 108 N.W.2d 840 (1961). We conclude therefore that the real property taxes accrued before decedent's death within the meaning of sect......
-
Estate of Edgar, Matter of
...words, he [137 MICHAPP 424] has a future interest in the corpus. M.C.L. Sec. 554.10; M.S.A. Sec. 26.10; City of Holland v. Fillmore Twp., 363 Mich. 38, 44-45, 108 N.W.2d 840 (1961). 2 Whether his future interest is vested subject to defeasance by his nonsurvival or is an interest contingent......