Guthrie v. Haun

• Decision Date: 26 October 1937
• Parties: GUTHRIE <I>v.</I> HAUN ET AL.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

159 Or. 50

76 P.2d 292

GUTHRIE

v. HAUN ET AL.

Supreme Court of Oregon.

Argued at Pendleton October 26, 1937.

Affirmed February 8, 1938.

Rehearing denied April 12, 1938.

Taxation — Assessment

1. Under statute requiring full cash value on each parcel of land taxed to be set down in assessment roll, tax assessment on contiguous lots owned by same person was not invalid because each lot in assessed tract was not assessed separately, since the statute requires only that disconnected parcels should not be assessed together and does not prohibit assessment, as one parcel of land, lots that are contiguous and owned by same person.

Taxation — Contiguous lots

2. Generally, several lots in the same block, contiguous to each other and owned by the same person, are deemed one "parcel" of land within contemplation of statute requiring full cash value of each "parcel" of land attached to be set down in assessment roll.

Taxation — Assessment

3. The policy of the law in requiring separate valuations to be placed upon disconnected and distinct parcels or tracts of land for taxation purposes is to protect the rights of the property owner and enable him to redeem any tract or parcel by paying the amount of tax specifically charged thereon.

Estoppel — Taxation — Foreclosure

4. Where mortgagee of farm and city property inquired of county officer as to tax due upon mortgaged property, and was informed as to tax on farm land only, and mortgagee paid such taxes, receiving tax receipts which did not show tax on city property was paid, county which foreclosed tax lien after mortgagee had accepted deed from mortgagor in liquidation of mortgage, at which time abstract of title prepared at mortgagee's request disclosed delinquent taxes, was not estopped to deny that acts of mortgagee were equivalent to payment of taxes.

Taxation — Assessment roll

5. The sheriff, to whom tax rolls are turned over for collection, does not have duty to search the deed records to ascertain whether the assessment roll correctly named owners of the property, although it is duty of assessor to put the name of the record owner on the tax roll.

Taxation — Assessment

6. The failure of the tax assessor to place name of record owner on tax roll is not fatal to validity of assessment.

Taxation

7. The failure to make a record owner of property who had accepted property in satisfaction of mortgage thereon a party defendant to tax foreclosure proceeding did not invalidate the foreclosure sale where property was accurately described in the foreclosure proceedings which is an "action in rem".

Taxation — Tax foreclosure

8. The statute requiring that only part of land necessary to pay tax should be sold, and not whole tract, was not applicable where there was no direct sale to an individual and property was purchased by county itself at tax foreclosure sale.

Evidence — Presumptions

9. A presumption exists that the sheriff will perform his official duties in the sale of property for delinquent taxes.

Taxation — Foreclosure sale

10. Evidence held to show that amount for which property was sold at tax foreclosure sale was not so disproportionate to the fair value of the land as to justify setting aside the sale.

Taxation — Foreclosure sale

11. The tax sale of contiguous lots owned by the same person, which were properly assessed as single parcels, was valid even though each lot was not sold separately, since the lots were properly assessed as single tracts.

Taxation — Foreclosure sale

12. A tax lien must exist upon property before there can be a valid tax sale thereof, and there can be no valid lien unless the property is properly assessed.

Taxation — Evidence — Burden of proof

13. The statute, which provides that a tax deed executed by the sheriff is prima facie evidence that property was subject to tax which was regularly levied, was properly assessed, and property sold for taxes, that realty had not been redeemed, and that grantee was purchaser or his assignee, shifts burden to owner who challenges validity of foreclosure tax sale.

Taxation — Evidence — Burden of proof

14. A mortgagee which had accepted, in liquidation of mortgage, mortgaged property which had tax lien against it, had burden to prove those things necessary to establish invalidity of subsequently held tax foreclosure sale.

Taxation — Evidence

15. The common-law rule requiring a party claiming under tax deed to prove compliance with all the statutory provisions relative to the assessment, levy, and sale of property no longer prevails.

Taxation — Foreclosure sale

16. The purchaser of realty from the county, which had purchased the realty at a tax foreclosure sale, had a right to rely upon the prima facie validity of the sheriff's deed issued to the county.

Taxation — Foreclosure sale

17. A tax foreclosure sale must be tested by the statutes in force at the time of the sale.

                  See 26 R.C.L. 358 (8 Perm. Supp., 5764)
                  Tax deed recitals as evidence of regularity of proceedings as
                to advertising and notice of sale, and as to time, manner and
                place of sale, note, 88 A.L.R. 264. See, also, 26 R.C.L. 423 (8
                Perm. Supp., 5772)
                  61 C.J. Taxation, § 782
                

In Banc.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Wallowa County.

J.W. KNOWLES, Judge.

Suit by George B. Guthrie, substituted as receiver for the Oregon-Washington Joint Stock Land Bank of Portland, Oregon, against Mellie D. Haun and another to set aside a tax sale and remove a cloud from property which was subject to the sale. From a decree dismissing the suit, plaintiff appeals.

AFFIRMED. REHEARING DENIED.

P.J. Gallagher, of Portland (John Laing, of Portland, on the brief), for appellant.

Burleigh & Burleigh, of Enterprise (Robert V. Chrisman, of Enterprise, on the brief), for respondents.

BELT, J.

This is a suit to determine the title and ownership of block A and lots 7 to 21, inclusive, of block B in Sproston's addition to the city of Wallowa, Wallowa, county, Oregon. Plaintiff's claim of title is based upon a deed from L. Couch and wife, executed in October, 1932, in liquidation of a mortgage covering the land in controversy. The defendant, Mellie D. Haun, claims to have deraigned title from Wallowa county which acquired a sheriff's deed on December 7, 1935, as a result of a sale to foreclose tax liens on the property for the years 1929 and 1930. The plaintiff challenges the validity of the tax assessment and sale for various reasons hereinafter considered. The trial court sustained the validity of the tax sale and gave effect to the deed which defendant Haun obtained from the county. From a decree dismissing the suit to set aside the tax sale as against the property in controversy, and, to remove a cloud therefrom, the plaintiff appeals.

The plaintiff asserts that the assessments against the lots in blocks A and B for the years 1929 and 1930 are void for the reason that the lots were not separately valued and assessed. The lots were assessed in the name of the true owner and were properly described on the tax rolls. Lots in block A were valued in the aggregate at $90 and a total tax of $6.51 for the year 1929 was levied against them. Lots in block B were valued at $100 and had a total tax levy of $7.23. The tax roll for the year 1930 was the same, except the amount of taxes levied for that year.

1. The lots were contiguous and were owned by the same person. Was the assessment invalid for the reason that no separate valuation and levy were made against each lot? It is plain that, before the lien can attach, the property must, among other things, be described as required by the statute and, in accordance with subdivision 4, section 69-242, Oregon Code 1930, "the full cash value of each parcel of land taxed". In our opinion this statutory rule means that two or more disconnected parcels shall not be assessed together but, when lots are contiguous and are owned by the same person, they may be assessed as one parcel of land: 61 C.J. 634; Cooley on Taxation (4th Ed.) 2166; Houghton v. Kern Valley Bank, 157 Cal. 289 (107 P. 113); People v. Morse, 43 Cal. 534; Cooperative Sav. v. Green, 5 Idaho 660 (51 P. 770); Dodge v. Emmons, 34 Kan. 732 (9 P. 951); Edwards v. Sims, 40 Kan. 235 (19 P. 710); In re Lehigh Co. & W.B. Coal Co.'s Assessment, 298 Pa. 294 (148 Atl. 301); Spiech v. Tierney, 56 Neb. 514 (76 N.W. 1090); Wright v. Cradlebaugh, 3 Nev. 341.

2, 3. The divergence of opinion in the courts arises, in many instances, over the question as to what constitutes a "parcel" of land: Black on Tax Titles (2 Ed.) § 103. This court has no hesitancy in stating that, as a general rule, several lots in the same block, contiguous to each other and owned by the same person, are, for the purposes of taxation, deemed one "parcel" of land. The use of property sometimes determines whether it is to be considered as a separate and distinct parcel of land for the purposes of taxation. The policy of the law in requiring separate valuations to be placed on disconnected and distinct parcels or tracts of land is to protect the rights of the property owner and enable him to redeem any tract or parcel by paying the amount of tax specifically charged thereon. If, in the instant case, it be argued that the owner is entitled to know the specific charge against each lot, it is answered that, had he desired to pay taxes on the same he could, by virtue of section 69-719, Oregon Code 1930, have applied to the assessor to ascertain the proportionate value of the lot, and the tax would have been collected accordingly. The assessor, in placing a valuation in the aggregate on the lots in block A and those in block B did not injure the owner as, under the above section of the statute, he had the right, upon application to the assessor, to be apprised of the valuation of any lot in the event he desired to pay the taxes on the same.

We are not unmindful that Victor Land Co. v. Winters, 59 Or. 420 (116 P. 1070), is contrary to the conclusion reached herein that a...