Golden Valley Cnty. v. Miller

• Decision Date: 23 July 1928
• Docket Number: No. 5529.,5529.
• Citation: 220 N.W. 839,57 N.D. 101
• Parties: GOLDEN VALLEY COUNTY v. MILLER.
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

57 N.D. 101

220 N.W. 839

GOLDEN VALLEY COUNTY

v.MILLER.

No. 5529.

Supreme Court of North Dakota.

July 23, 1928.

Syllabus by the Court.

The law governing the issuance of tax deeds must be construed strictly.

A purported notice of the time of the expiration of the period of redemption, which does not bear the signature of the county auditor, is of no effect.

Though a tax deed is, under the statute, “prima facie evidence of the regularity of all the proceedings from the assessment and valuation of the land by the assessor up to the execution of the deed,” yet if the evidence shows no proper notice of the time of the expiration of the period of redemption was issued or served, this “prima facie evidence” will not support the tax deed issued.

Appeal from District Court, Golden Valley County; H. L. Berry, Judge.

Action by Golden Valley County against J. A. Miller. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Modified, and, as modified, affirmed.J. A. Miller, of Beach, and Crawford, Cain & Burnett, of Dickinson, for appellant.

Keohane & Oppegard and H. L. Halliday, all of Beach, for respondent.

BURR, J.

The plaintiff seeks to quiet title to lot 6, block 3, of the original townsite of Beach, and in the complaint alleges that it is the owner in fee of the said property and that the defendant, Miller, claims an interest therein.

The defendant, Miller, says that at one time he was the owner of the property involved; that the plaintiff claims to be the owner on account of a tax deed issued by the auditor of Golden Valley county; that the tax deed is void in that the assessments and taxes levied upon the property, the basis for the tax deed, were in excess of the amount permitted to be levied, and that before the issuance of the tax deed he received no notice of expiration of the time of redemption.

There is practically no dispute in the evidence. The defendant was the owner of the real estate in the year 1918, and in that year taxes were levied amounting to $78.42. The taxes for subsequent years are as follows: Taxes for 1919 in the sum of $99.48; taxes for 1920 in the sum of $94.65; taxes for 1921 in the sum of $125.24; taxes for 1922 in the sum of $122.55; taxes for 1923 in the sum of $84.41; taxes for 1924 in the sum of $80; taxes for 1925 in the sum of $82.14; taxes for 1926 in the sum of $84.64-in all, $851.53, without interest. The premises were sold for the 1918 taxes, and on the 9th day of December, 1919, a tax certificate was issued to the county, and the county is still the owner of this tax certificate. On February 2, 1926, the county proceeded to perfect title, and purported notice of expiration of the period of redemption was served upon the defendant. The only signature to this notice is a line for a name with the words “County Auditor” thereunder. Thereafter the tax deed was issued. Defendant admits he received this notice, but ignored it, having come to the conclusion that it had no legal effect. He admits he has paid none of the taxes for the years 1918 to 1926, inclusive.

The contention of the defendant is that the assessment for 1918 was in excess of that allowed by law in that the state levy was 4 3/10 mills. There is nothing in the evidence to show that this levy was illegal. It is true the state levy is limited to 4 mills for state purposes (section 174 of the Constitution), but there is nothing to indicate that the excess is not for interest on state debts permitted by the same section. The defendant made no attempt to show what the “excess rate” was for. We do not assume illegal action on the part of officials.

[1][2] Before the tax deed could issue, however, defendant was entitled to notice of the expiration of the time of redemption. No such notice was served upon him. The trial court assumed that the printed words “County Auditor” was...