Hargrove v. Lucas, 5429
| Decision Date | 23 April 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 5429,5429 |
| Citation | 1952 NMSC 43,56 N.M. 323,243 P.2d 623 |
| Parties | HARGROVE v. LUCAS et al. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
George L. Reese, Sr., Roswell, for appellants.
Hervey, Dow & Hinkle, W. E. Bondurant, Jr., Roswell, for appellee.
The defendant and cross complainant, William E. Lucas, is the patentee of the 320 acres of land in Chaves County to which the lower court quieted a fee simple title in the plaintiff.
The taxes were not paid on the land for the years 1931, 1932 and 1933, and on December 7, 1934, the County Treasurer sold the property for taxes due for such years in the sum of $32.43, and on the same date issued a tax sale certificate covering the sale. The property was not redeemed, and on May 21, 1937, the Treasurer issued a tax deed conveying the property involved to the State of New Mexico. This deed was recorded in the office of the County Clerk of Chaves County on June 2, 1937. On April 1, 1943, the State Tax Commission executed and delivered its deed to the property to the plaintiff, but this latter deed was not filed for record in the office of the County Clerk of Chaves County until July 30, 1946. The State Tax Commission gave the plaintiff another deed to the same property on May 22, 1950, after the institution of this action, and it was recorded on May 29, 1950, in the office of such County Clerk. No attack is made on any of the proceedings leading up to the sale and issuance of the deeds.
The defendants contend the 1943 deed from the Tax Commission to the plaintiff is utterly void for failure to file it for record with the County Clerk within one year after its issuance and the title to the land thereupon revested in them by virtue of Sec. 3, Ch. 104, Laws of 1931, Sec. 76-719, N.M.S.A., 1941 Compilation; that there was no authority in law for the issuance of the second deed by the State Tax Commission and it is also void. The section reads as follows:
'Any tax deed which is not filed for record in the office of the county clerk of the county in which the real estate affected thereby is situated, within one (1) year from the date of the issuance thereof shall be null, void and of no effect; Provided, that tax deeds which are not filed for record at the date of the passage of this act may be so filed within one (1) year from the date of the passage of this act.'
At the time of the passage of the 1931 act, supra, the method followed for the sale of lands for delinquent taxes was by suit in court to foreclose the lien, and after the decree was entered sale was made by the county treasurer.
At a special session of the Legislature in 1934, Ch. 27, Laws of 1934, was enacted, doing away with the foreclosure suit. By this statute it was provided that in December of each year the county treasurer should offer the lands upon which taxes were delinquent for sale and issue and deliver his tax sale certificate evidencing such sale to any purchaser. Any lands not purchased by an individual are to be struck off to the State of New Mexico, with or without bid on behalf of the State, and all property not struck off to individual purchasers at some time during the sale is deemed sold to the State by the operation of law. McMillan v. Meharg, 55 N.M. 556, 237 P.2d 359. At any time within two years thereafter anyone could buy such certificates from the treasurer. The former owner, or another qualified so to do, could redeem the lands from such sale by paying the sale price, interest, penalties, etc. within two years from the date of sale. At the end of the two-year period of redemption the purchaser was entitled to a tax deed to such land on a form prescribed by the 1934 Act. All lands sold at the original sale by the treasurer and not redeemed or purchased by individuals were required to be deeded to the State of New Mexico by the county treasurer and the deeds therefor recorded in the office of the county clerk in the county where the lands were situated. The State Tax Commission was then authorized to sell any of the lands so conveyed to the State for the best price obtainable, but it was provided the former owner should have a preference right to repurchase it from the Tax Commission for the amount then due, provided someone had not made a prior offer therefor.
The defendants contend Section 3 of the 1931 Act refers only to sales made under the law as it existed at the time of its enactment, and could not apply to sales made under the 1934 Act. We will assume, for the purposes of this case, that Sec. 3, Ch. 104, Laws of 1931, was not repealed by the 1934 Act, and operated prospectively.
Our statute under which the sale was made is so different from those of other states that cases from other jurisdictions are of but little help, and this is the first time this question has been before us. All parties, however, rely to some extent on Kansas cases. There they have a statute requiring an action in court to foreclose a delinquent tax lien, and, according to the statutes as set out in Moorhead v. Guliford, 163 Kan. 730, 186 P.2d 275, title does not vest in a purchaser at a tax sale until he files his deed for record in the recorder's office, and this must be done within six months from the date of issuance or it is void. The court says the purpose of the statute is to protect innocent third parties who may become...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Thomson
...title vested by tax sale be a 'complete title to the property' but also that the State 'shall be deemed a purchaser.' Hargrove v. Lucas, 56 N.M. 323, 243 P.2d 623 (1952). Once title vested, as it did under the circumstances here present, the subsequent non-use of the premises could not alte......
-
Jackson v. Hartley
...repurchase. Marquez v. Marquez, 85 N.M. 470, 513 P.2d 713 (1973); State v. Thomson, 79 N.M. 748, 449 P.2d 656 (1969); Hargrove v. Lucas, 56 N.M. 323, 243 P.2d 623 (1952); De Baca v. Perea, 52 N.M. 418, 200 P.2d 715 (1948); Alamogordo Improvement Co. v. Hennessee, 40 N.M. 162, 56 P.2d 1127 (......
-
Greene v. Esquibel
...of ten years prior thereto. Pursuant to the County Treasurer's deed the State acquired a fee simple title to the property. Hargrove v. Lucas, 56 N.M. 323, 243 P.2d 623. And the only right defendants had after the title vested in the State was a preferential right to repurchase the land as p......
-
State ex rel. Klineline v. Blackhurst
...against forfeiture. See State v. Ozarek, 91 N.M. 275, 573 P.2d 209 (1978). We previously applied this principle in Hargrove v. Lucas, 56 N.M. 323, 243 P.2d 623 (1952) (in a quiet title action brought by plaintiff under a tax deed acquired from the state, plaintiff did not lose title by fail......