City of Phoenix v. Wayland
| Decision Date | 01 April 1946 |
| Docket Number | 4767 |
| Citation | 64 Ariz. 222,167 P.2d 933 |
| Parties | CITY OF PHOENIX et al. v. WAYLAND et al |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Maricopa County; Dudley W. Windes Judge.
Affirmed.
Richard Minne, City Atty., and Wm. C. Fields, Deputy City Atty., both of Phoenix, for appellants.
Snell Strouss & Wilmer, of Phoenix, for appellees.
Appellees, plaintiffs below, filed an action against numerous defendants, among them appellant city of Phoenix, seeking to quiet appellees' title to certain lots in the city of Phoenix. The appellants, answering the suit to quiet title, claimed a lien against the property for taxes levied by the city of Phoenix for each of the years 1929 to 1940, inclusive. The trial court entered judgment quieting title in the appellees as against appellants' claim of lien.
The property involved herein consists of seventeen lots in Churchill Addition, an addition to the city of Phoenix, Ariz. On July 11, 1932, these lots were duly and regularly sold for state and county taxes for the years 1927 to 1930, inclusive, and certificates of purchase issued to the state of Arizona as purchaser, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 103, Laws of 1931, Art. 8, Ch. 73, A.C.A.1939. On June 24, 1940, treasurer's deeds were issued to the state of Arizona under the provisions of Sections 49, 50, and 51, Laws of 1931, Secs. 73-835, 73-836, and 73-837, A.C.A.1939. Thereafter the board of supervisors of Maricopa County, in the manner required by law, advertised these lots for sale and on June 14, 1943, sold and conveyed them to the appellees.
The appeal comes to this court on an agreed statement of the case and brings in question the relative priority of the liens of state, county, and city of Phoenix taxes, and the status of the lien of city of Phoenix taxes after title to the property has passed to the state of Arizona, the city of Phoenix taxes having been levied against the property prior to the acquisition of title thereto by the state.
We have had recourse to the following adjudicated principles of law in reaching the conclusions herein expressed. Unless restricted by the state Constitution, the Legislature has full power to determine and fix the priority of tax liens. Walker v. Nogales, etc. Ass'n, 28 Ariz. 484, 237 P. 1094; Steinfeld v. State, 37 Ariz. 389, 294 P. 834; Home Owners' Loan Corp. v. City of Phoenix, 51 Ariz. 455, 77 P.2d 818; Holbrook, Town of v. Koury, 50 Ariz. 526, 73 P.2d 698, 51 Am.Jur., Taxation, § 1016.
The Constitution of the state of Arizona places no restriction upon the power of the Legislature to fix the priority of tax liens.
Section 73-506, A.C.A.1939, Sec. 1, Ch. 106, L.1931, provides in part as follows: * * *"
By these provisions of Section 73-506, the Legislature has given the lien of taxes levied under the authority of Chapter 73, A.C.A.1939 (Ch. 75, R.C.A.1928) a priority and superiority over all other liens and encumbrances except liens and encumbrances held by the state.
State and county taxes are levied under the authority of Article 5, Chapter 73, or specifically under the authority of Section 73-501 (Sec. 3096, R.C.A.1928), and have the superiority of lien fixed by Section 73-506, supra.
In order for taxes of cities and towns to be levied under the authority of Chapter 73, such taxes must be levied in conformity with the requirements of Article 6 of Chapter 73. To conform to the requirements of Article 6, the levy must be made upon the valuation made by the county assessor, extended on the county tax roll, equalized by the county and state boards of equalization in the same manner state and county taxes are equalized, and collected by the county treasurer in the same manner state and county taxes are collected. The proceeds, upon collection by the county treasurer, are distributed pro rata among the several taxing units. Section 73-606. When so levied they have the superiority and priority provided in Section 73-506, supra, -- that is, they are on a parity with state and county taxes. The lien for taxes of several taxing units can only be on a parity where they are all collected together at one time. If the taxes of each taxing unit are separately enforced and the one first selling must sell subject to the lien for taxes of the other taxing unit, then the selling unit may sell only the equity over and above the lien of the other taxing unit, and has in effect only a second or junior lien.
As we said in Trigg v. City of Yuma, 59 Ariz. 480, 130 P.2d 59, 60, 61: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jung v. Soo
... ... of third persons -- in this case the Department of Liquor ... Licenses and Control and the City Counsel, and where it does ... not appear that such consent or approval has been or can be ... ...
-
Kipnis v. Maricopa County
...acquires title to land, any existing tax lien merges into the legal title of the State and is destroyed. See, e.g., City of Phoenix v. Wayland, 64 Ariz. 222, 167 P.2d 933. From this it is '* * * irrespective of whether the state acquires its title under a tax sale or the title reverts to it......
-
Brown v. City of Phoenix
... ... point, for twice since that decision was handed down this ... court has had occasion to put its stamp of approval upon ... same. See City of Phoenix v. Elias, 64 Ariz. 95, 166 ... P.2d 589, opinion written by Chief Justice Stanford, ... [68 Ariz. 101] and City of Phoenix v. Wayland, 64 ... Ariz. 222, 167 P.2d 933, opinion written by Justice LaPrade ... We again adhere to the pronouncement upon this point set ... forth in the Trigg case ... Appellants ... are resident property owners and taxpayers of the City of ... Phoenix, and the principal controversy ... ...