Hickey v. Peck

• Decision Date: 13 January 1942
• Docket Number: 78.
• Citation: Hickey v. Peck, 180 Md. 289, 23 A.2d 711 (Md. 1942)
• Parties: HICKEY et al. v. PECK et al.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

23 A.2d 711

180 Md. 289

HICKEY et al. v. PECK et al.

No. 78.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

January 13, 1942

Appeal from Circuit Court, St. Mary's County; Ogle Marbury Judge.

Proceeding in equity by Mary E. Hickey and another against Eugene C Peck and others to have declared void a tax sale and deed wherein Edgar D. Turner and another, trustees, and William T Abbott intervened.From an adverse decree, the plaintiffs appeal.

Affirmed.

Wm. Aleck Loker, of Leonardtown (Francis W. Hill, Jr., of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellants.

Aloysius F. King, Philip H. Dorsey, Jr., and John H. T. Briscoe, all of Leonardtown, for appellees.

Before SLOAN, JOHNSON, DELAPLAINE, and COLLINS, JJ.

JOHNSON Judge.

This proceeding was instituted in the Circuit Court for St. Mary's County, in equity, by Mary E. Hickey against Eugene C. Peck, Katherine S. H. Peck, his wife, the County Commissioners of St. Mary's County, and Harrison Hobbs, late County Treasurer, for the purpose of having declared null and void a tax sale and a tax deed.Edgar D. Turner, Philip H. Dorsey, Jr., trustees, and William T. Abbott petitioned for leave to intervene and were by order of the court made partiescomplainant.

The bill of complaint recites that on September 5, 1934, the plaintiff Hickey purchased from George L. Pumphrey, widower, certain land in the Third Election District of St. Mary's County, known and described as lots Nos. 16, 17 and 18 in BlockNo. 38 of the subdivision known as 'St. Clement's Shores', as appeared from a certified copy of a deed being therewith filed and marked 'Complainant's Exhibit A'; that said land was purchased subject to a lien of a certain deed of trust from Pumphrey to Philip H. Dorsey et al., dated July 11, 1934, and recorded among the Land Records of St. Mary's County, Maryland, a certified copy of said deed of trust being therewith filed and marked 'Complainant's Exhibit B'; that an investigation by Mrs. Hickey showed that on December 12, 1938, a pretended sale was made by Harrison Hobbs, late County Treasurer for St. Mary's County, purportedly for state and county taxes due and in arrears for the year 1937; that the same was purchased by the County Commissioners of St. Mary's County, a body corporate, for the sum of $12.36, and said sale was ratified on February 24, 1940, and a deed conveying said real estate was executed by the said Harrison Hobbs and the County Commissioners of St. Mary's County to Peck and wife on March 12, 1940, and recorded among the Land Records of St. Mary's County, a certified copy of said instrument being filed and marked 'Complainant's Exhibit C'; that the plaintiff is a resident of the District of Columbia and does not subscribe to or receive any of the newspapers published in St. Mary's County, Maryland, and she had no notice or knowledge of said sale until a few months previously when she accidently learned that said property had been sold for nonpayment of taxes.

The sixth paragraph alleges that acting through her agent, Edgar D. Turner, she requested the County Treasurer to inform her or her agent of any and all sales or anticipated sales of property in said subdivision, in which request the County Treasurer acquiesced, but did not notify your oratrix or her agent of the sale or the pendency of the same; that the plaintiff was never notified that the taxes were in arrears on said property, and the advertisement of said sale was irregular and improper in law, in that it did not properly describe said property which consists of a house and other improvements, and three lots, and was advertised merely as a house and lot.

It is then alleged that notice of said tax sale was not adequately or properly published, because the County Treasurer did not offer said property in parcels less than the whole, although the same was susceptible of division without detriment; that the order of publication was not published for the length of time required by law, and being a nonresident Mrs. Hickey had no knowledge that the said Peck and wife claimed ownership thereof and had been using the same since date of the deed to them; that the real estate was a valuable water front property, and was at the time of the sale and is now worth at least $1,000; that the plaintiff had always been prepared and ready and was at the time of the filing of the bill prepared and ready to pay all state and county taxes properly chargeable against said property, and that the tax sale and the subsequent conveyances of said property was irregular and illegal and absolutely void, but casts a cloud upon the title of the petitioner.

The prayers of the bill are, (a) that the tax sale and deed to Peck and wife may be declared unlawful, null and void; may be cancelled by a decree of the court; (b) that Peck and wife may be restrained in from any manner interfering with occupancy or use of said land by the plaintiff, her agents and tenants, and that they may be further enjoined from alienating or encumbering said land; and (c) for general relief.

The defendants filed their answers to the bill of complaint, denied its material averments and insisted that the sale as made was valid, and as such was binding upon the plaintiffs.Testimony was later taken before the examiner and submitted to the chancellor for a decree.He filed an opinion holding that the necessary requirements of a valid tax sale had been complied with and decreed that the bill of complaint be dismissed, with costs to the defendants.Later, on a petition for a rehearing, he again considered the cause and found no reason to change his opinion.The appeal to this Court is from his original decree of June 23, 1941.

The complainant$hs petition lists nine reasons why the tax sale mentioned in the proceedings should be set aside.We will discuss these in the order raised.

1.Inadequacy of price.

It is contended, because the property was assessed for taxable purposes at $600, and valued generally at a higher figure was sold for taxes at $12.36, the sale should be set aside.If this proposition is tenable, practically all tax sales made by every taxing authority would be void.Inadequacy of price may be considered in connection with other matters to justify setting aside a sale, but by itself is not a sufficient reason, unless it shocks the conscience of the court.An entirely different standard of inadequacy is applicable to tax sales, because the purchaser there buys, knowing the uncertainty of his title which is reflected in his offer, and if the claim of the taxing authority is satisfied by the amount of the bid, he gets the property for the amount of the taxes, interest and costs.Under such circumstances, where the owner of the property has not thought it worth while to pay taxes on the property, courts will not look too closely at the amount of the purchase price in the absence of any other circumstances.In this case no purchaser appeared and the property was sold to the commissioners, who were clearly not authorized to pay more than the amount actually due.

2.The report of sale made by the Treasurer was not filed within the time required by law.

The Code of Public Local Laws, Article 19, Section 61, prescribes the method for the Treasurer of St. Mary's County to make tax sales.It states that 'Immediately after the sale of any real estate by said county treasurer, he shall report the same to the Circuit Court.'Here the sale was made December 12, 1938.The report of sale was sworn to January 19, 1939, and filed January 28, 1939.The delay is not such as to invalidate the sale, especially when its effect, if any, gave the owners more time in which to redeem the property.

3.There was no nonresident publication of notices as required by law.

By the Section previously quoted, it is provided that 'If it appears from the report of sale that any of the said delinquent taxpayers are non-residents of the State of Maryland, the said clerk shall issue and cause to be published an order of publication to non-residents, as is required in suits in equity'.This was not done in the present case, although Mrs. Hickey was a nonresident.

However, that statute does not impose this duty on the Treasurer, but places it upon the clerk of the court, and then only when it appears from the report of sale that the delinquent taxpayer is a nonresident.This the report does not do, hence there was no duty upon the clerk to make such a publication, nor was there any duty placed upon the Treasurer to investigate the residences of the delinquent taxpayers, and in the absence of evidence showing that the Treasurer knew that Mrs. Hickey was a nonresident, the duty of notifying her does not exist.

4.The property was not properly described in the advertisement.

This question is raised, because three lots were sold in one parcel.The lots were each 20 feet wide and 105 feet deep, and the evidence shows that a small bungalow was built across all three of the properties which were treated as one parcel, and the property was, therefore, assessed as a house and lot.Obviously to have described it as three lots, when one house occupied the three, would have misled rather than informed the buying public.

5.The property was not assessed to the owner or advertised in the name of the trustees, who held the legal title.

In Hill v. Williams,104 Md. 595, 65 A. 413, 414, it is said: 'It is not compatible with public convenience and the prompt collection of revenue for the state to trace out all the subdivided or qualified interests that may be held in real estate and seek to hold the various owners responsible.Its policy is to assess the fee-simple value of the land to the holder of the possession, where its real owner is not apparent or accessible, leaving the...