Gould v. City of St. Paul
| Decision Date | 03 January 1913 |
| Docket Number | 17,744 - (122) |
| Citation | 139 N.W. 293,120 Minn. 172 |
| Parties | THOMAS GOULD v. CITY OF ST. PAUL |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Ramsey county for partition of a certain city lot. The answer alleged that in October, 1908 plaintiff began a proceeding to register title to the real estate and defendant was required to answer the application which it did, and the proceeding was still pending. Further answering defendant alleged that the court had no jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the action. The case was tried before Dickson, J., who made findings and as conclusion of law found that plaintiff was entitled to no relief, and that defendant city was entitled to a valid lien upon the lot for $13.47 and interest and had a further lien for $64.29 and interest. From an order denying his motion for a new trial, plaintiff appealed. Reversed and new trial granted.
Local assessment lien -- state tax lien.
Chapter 200, Laws 1905, declaring local assessment liens of certain municipalities, where proceedings for the enforcement of the same are conducted independently of the delinquent tax proceedings of the state, of equal rank with the state tax lien, construed, and held to apply to assessment and general tax liens accruing the same year.
Local assessment lien -- priority of lien.
General state tax or local assessment liens levied in a particular year are paramount and superior to similar liens of prior years.
Merger of lien in perfected title.
In the absence of a statute to the contrary, general tax and local assessment liens are merged and extinguished on the perfection of a title under the same.
Tenants in common.
Where title under a state tax lien is perfected by an individual, and title under a local assessment lien is perfected by the municipality levying the assessment, both titles being so perfected in separate and independent proceedings, and the liens being under the provisions of chapter 200, Laws 1905, of equal rank, the parties become by operation of law joint owners of the property.
Action in partition may be maintained.
An action in partition may be maintained against the city of St. Paul to determine rights in property the title to which was acquired as above stated.
William G. White, for appellant.
O. H. O'Neill and J. P. Kyle, for respondent.
Action for the partition of real property, in which defendant prevailed on the trial below, and plaintiff appealed from an order denying a new trial. The short facts are as follows:
The property involved in the action is lot 14 in block 51, Lawton Bros. Addition to St. Paul. It was sold by the state in November, 1907, in forfeited tax proceedings, for the taxes remaining delinquent for the years 1891, 1892, and 1901 to 1906, inclusive. A forfeited tax deed was duly issued to the National Bond & Surety Company, a corporation, the purchaser at the sale. No redemption was ever made, though proper notice was given, and plaintiff has succeeded to the title and rights of the Surety Company. By a subsequent action to determine adverse claims, plaintiff's title was confirmed as to the record owner and all unknown persons having or claiming any title or interest therein. The city of St. Paul, defendant herein, was not a party to that action.
In the year 1901 the defendant, city of St. Paul, acting through its board of public works, and pursuant to the provisions of its charter, duly levied an assessment against the property for the amount of benefits assessed against it in local improvement proceedings. A warrant for the collection of the assessment was duly issued to the city treasurer on May 17, 1902. The assessment was not paid and became delinquent. Such proceedings were thereafter had, as required by law, that judgment was duly rendered against the property for the amount of the assessment, with interest and costs, and the property was subsequently sold at a sale held for that purpose on November 8, 1902. No bidders appearing, the property was duly struck off to the city, and a certificate of sale in due form duly issued. No redemption was ever made, though due notice was given, and the city became the owner of the property, or the owner and holder of such rights as accrued from the sale of the property under the facts stated.
Local assessment proceedings in the city of St. Paul, including the levy, the collection, and proceedings for the enforcement of delinquent assessments, are conducted through the administrative city officers, independently of proceedings by the state for the enforcement of delinquent general state taxes. In other municipalities of the state, the proceedings from the point of delinquency are consolidated; the unpaid assessments being certified to the county auditor, and by him included in the general delinquent tax proceedings. Some confusion has heretofore arisen in respect to rights acquired under the separate proceedings, particularly as to priority of liens. It was held in White v. Knowlton, 84 Minn. 141, 86 N.W. 755, that the lien of the city was subordinate to the lien of the state for general taxes. For the purpose of preventing further conflict of rights naturally resulting from the independent proceedings, and to protect the interests of the city, the legislature enacted chapter 200, p. 255, Laws 1905. For present purposes, it is sufficient to say that by that statute the lien of the local assessment and the lien for the general taxes were declared of equal rank.
In this case plaintiff's title springs from the general tax, and defendant's from the local assessment, the liens of which were, under the statute referred to, of equal rank, neither being superior to the other. The contention of plaintiff, and this is the theory and basis of his action, is that, since plaintiff and defendant each acquired an independent title to the property pursuant to the sale in the separate proceedings, and upon distinct liens of equal rank, they became joint owners of the property, or, as otherwise expressed, tenants in common, and that partition proceedings may be maintained to determine the relative rights of the respective parties. The trial court rejected this contention, holding that the rights of the city were paramount and superior to those acquired by plaintiff through the general tax proceedings. Whether the learned judge below was correct in this conclusion presents the substantial question on this appeal.
1. For the purpose of a clear understanding of the case and the question involved, we here set out the statute, a construction of which determines the issue presented. The statute is as follows:
"That all assessments upon real property for local improvements made or levied by the proper authorities of any city in the state, * * * shall be a paramount lien upon the land upon which they are imposed from the date of the warrant issued for the collection thereof, and of equal rank with the lien of the state for taxes which have been or may be levied upon said property under the general laws of the state; and that the general rules of law as to priority of tax liens shall apply equally to the liens of such assessments and to such liens for general taxes, with the same force and effect as though all of the liens aforesaid and all of the taxes and assessments aforesaid, were of the same general character and imposed for the same purpose and by the same authority, without regard to the priority in point of time of the attaching of either of said liens, and a sale or perfecting title under either shall not bar or extinguish the other."
2. While the statute in broad language refers to all local assessment liens and all general tax liens, and declares that they shall be of equal rank, there must necessarily be a limitation upon the particular liens the legislature intended to deal with. It cannot well be said that the lawmakers intended to declare that assessment liens attached to property in a particular year should remain either paramount or upon an equality with like liens attaching during subsequent years, for such a construction would be at variance with the clause, found in the body of the statute, that the general rules of law in respect to the priority of tax liens shall apply to the local assessment lien. The rule applied to all other liens is that the first in point of time takes priority, while the rule is the reverse in tax liens. As to such liens, "the last shall be first, and the first last." Cooley, Taxation (3d ed.) 875. It is clear that the legislature intended this rule to continue and be applicable to assessment liens and rights accruing thereunder.
It follows that, to give effect to the statute, it must be construed as applying, when declaring the equal rank of assessment and general tax liens, to such as arise from taxes or assessments levied during a particular year. So that, while the two liens for a particular year are of equal rank, those arising during subsequent years, though as between the two concurrent, are paramount and superior to those attaching during preceding years, and must be paid by the prior lienholder to protect his rights. In this view it is clear in the case at bar that the assessments made by the city in the year 1908, as disclosed by the findings of the court, are superior to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial