Coleman v. Town of Hooksett, 6127

• Decision Date: 02 November 1971
• Docket Number: No. 6127,6127
• Citation: 111 N.H. 337,283 A.2d 681
• Parties: Luther COLEMAN v. TOWN OF HOOKSETT et al.
• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

Page 681

283 A.2d 681

111 N.H. 337

Luther COLEMAN v. TOWN OF HOOKSETT et al.

No. 6127.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire.

Nov. 2, 1971.

Paul A. Rinden, Concord, and Thomas N. Tarrant, Manchester, for plaintiff.

L. Wilder Quint, Concord (by brief and orally) for defendants Theodore and Elizabeth Natti and Clayton and Ruth Heath.

K. Donald Woodbury, Suncook, for defendant Town of Hooksett, filed no brief.

Eaton, Eaton, Ross & Moody, Manchester, for defendants Pearl Dowd and Perle Real Estate Co., Inc., filed no brief.

LAMPRON, Justice.

Petition to quiet title to certain real estate in Hooksett formerly owned by Mrs. Louise Ackerson who, on April 30, 1967, conveyed all her right, title and interest therein to the plaintiff Luther Coleman. The defendants claim title by virtue of a tax collector's deed to the town of Hooksett dated September 16, 1963, resulting from a sale of these premises to the town on August 28, 1961 for unpaid taxes for the year 1960.

After a hearing, the Trial Court (Loughlin, J.) found that there had been full compliance with the provisions of RSA ch. 80 regulating the sale of real estate for unpaid taxes and dismissed plaintiff's petition. The court also decreed that 'as regards the validity of title between the parties in controversy, the grantees deriving their or its title through the Town of Hooksett have valid title, not the plaintiff.' Plaintiff's exceptions, to the court's denial of certain of his requests for findings and rulings, to findings and rulings made, and to the court's decree were reserved and transferred.

As plaintiff's rights do not exceed those of Louise Ackerson, his grantor (23 Am.Jur.2d Deeds ss. 291, 292 (1965)), the main issue to be decided is whether the trial court properly found and ruled that the tax sale and subsequent deed to the town divested Louise Ackerson of her title to the premises in question and transferred it to the town of Hooksett and by it to its grantees, the other defendants.

Plaintiff's first contention is that the tax collector failed to comply with the requirements of RSA 80:21. This statute provides in part that the notices of sale of real estate for non-payment of taxes which are to be posted and sent to the owner shall state 'the name of the owner or of the person to whom the same was taxed, the description of the property as recorded by the selectmen, the amount of the tax, interest due thereon and costs and fees incident to advertising and posting, and the place, day and hour of the sale. He shall also, at the same time, send a like notice by registered mail to the last known postoffice address of the owner or of the person against whom the tax was assessed.'

The description of the 'property' to be sold contained in the notices of sale was the following: 'Ackerson, Mrs. Louise Land and Buildings.' There was evidence that the selectmen's inventory (RSA 75:4-9) listed nine separate items of property assessed to Mrs. Ackerson for that year, two of which are not involved in these proceedings. The properties sold consisted of one parcel with buildings assessed at $1770 and six parcels of land assessed variously from $30 to $170. The total assessment of all seven parcels was $2,210.

The purpose of the notices required by RSA 80:21 is (1) to inform the owner that his property is to be sold so that he can prevent the sale by paying the taxes, and (2) to advise prospective purchasers that the taxpayer's property is to be offered for sale. See Amoskeag Savings Bank v. Alger, 66 N.H. 414, 29 A. 407 (1890); ...