Hoffman v. Otto, 9.
| Decision Date | 16 October 1936 |
| Docket Number | No. 9.,9. |
| Citation | 269 N.W. 225,277 Mich. 437 |
| Parties | HOFFMAN v. OTTO et al. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Bill by Dora Hoffman against Irene Otto and others and the City of Detroit. From the decree, the City of Detroit appeals.
Reversed and bill dismissed as to the City of Detroit.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County, in Chancery; Ormond F. Hunt, judge.
Argued before the Entire Bench except POTTER, J.
Raymond J. Kelly, Corp. Counsel, and John H. Witherspoon, Asst. Corp. Counsel, both of Detroit, for appellant.
David Goldman, of Detroit, for appellee.
This is a bill to quiet title under a state tax deed, against tax liens of the city of Detroit, and presents the question of whether sales for state and county taxes, with purchase by the state and subsequent deed by the state, vest title in the grantee, free from contemporaneous taxes levied by the city, if the city, upon notice by the grantee of a right to do so, does not redeem.
The court below held:
‘That the said tax deed for the state and county taxes for the year 1928 discharges and destroys any interest of any name or nature that the City of Detroit may have in said premises by reason of taxes or special assessments levied by such City for the years 1927 and 1928.
‘That a fair and reasonable interpretation of the statutes and provisions of the Charter of the City of Detroit does not warrant awarding to the plaintiff a decree cancelling, vacating and setting aside the lien of the city for its assessments subsequent to the year 1928.’
The decree quieted the title in plaintiff as of August 21, 1933, subject to taxes and assessments levied by the city and state and county for 1929 and subsequent years.
The city appealed from the decree quieting plaintiff's title, and plaintiff appealed from the reservations in the decree but, at the hearing, made waiver thereof.
Upon the premises there is a sixty-five apartment building. In December 1932, A. Kaufman received a state tax deed for the premises for the state and county taxes of 1928, and at that time he also paid the state and county taxes for the years 1929, 1930, and 1931, and secured from the auditor general a certificate for the purchase of a state tax deed for the year 1929, and receipts for payment of the 1930 and 1931 taxes. Mr. Kaufman, in December 1932, by quitclaim deed, conveyed to plaintiff, who then served a notice upon the city and others of right to redeem from the tax deed upon payment of $11,024.51. No redemption was made. The city of Detroit had unpaid levies for taxes and special assessments upon the premises for the years 1927, 1928, 1930, 1931, 1932, and 1933.
Plaintiff contends that the tax deed, under which she holds, and the failure of the city to redeem upon notice, destroyed the general and special tax levies and interest of the city in the property for the years 1927 and 1928.
In behalf of the city it is contended that there is no superiority among the tax liens of the units of government of the state; that the tax lien of the city of Detroit is, by the Constitution and statutes, accorded equality of effectiveness with the lien for state and county taxes; that the sale of real estate for delinquent taxes by one unit of the government is subject to the duly authorized tax lien of another unit of the government within the state, when the tax lien is possessed by the municipal unit; and that plaintiff's title, under the tax deed, did not and could not divest and destroy the tax liens of the city.
Taxation is a power of sovereignty. The power may not be surrendered but, to the extent of public need, may be delegated to municipal power. When, for general municipal purposes, it is so delegated, it is clothed with effectiveness and, unless carrying restrictions, serves with the sovereign power and is to be saved from defeat of such purpose if reasonably possible.
The state, undoubtedly, could, by appropriate legislation, do the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Board of County Com'rs. of Big Horn County v. Bench Canal Drainage Dist.
... ... adopted a rule of concurrent liens as between general taxes ... and city general and special tax levies. Hoffman v. Otto ... (Mich.) 269 N.W. 225; City of Detroit v. Sitter ... (Mich.) 285 N.W. 40, 41, 42. The Illinois court has held ... that the lien for ... ...
-
People v. Cameron, 330876
...UAW v. Green , 498 Mich. 282, 290, 870 N.W.2d 867 (2015). Nevertheless, a legislature may delegate its powers. Hoffman v. Otto , 277 Mich. 437, 440, 269 N.W. 225 (1936) (noting that, "to the extent of public need," the power of taxation may be delegated to municipal power). To delegate its ......
-
Magee v. Whitacre
...Allison Realty Co. v. Graves Investment Co., 115 Fla. 48, 155 So. 745; City of Tampa v. Barbee, 115 Fla. 46, 155 So. 751; Hoffman v. Otto, 277 Mich. 437, 269 N.W. 225; Tax Securities Corporation v. Security Corporation, 115 Fla. 536, 155 So. 752. Irrigation district assessments are equivale......
-
Mun. Investors Ass'n v. City of Birmingham
...by the Constitution.’ Baker v. State Land Office Board, supra, 294 Mich. page 602, 293 N.W. page 768. See, also, Hoffman v. Otto, 277 Mich. 437, 269 N.W. 225. The legislative body of the State has determined in what manner lands owned by the State shall be sold. In a long and able opinion t......