In re Taxes Delinquent, Washington County
| Decision Date | 01 May 1936 |
| Docket Number | 30803-30805. |
| Citation | 266 N.W. 867,197 Minn. 266 |
| Parties | In re TAXES DELINQUENT, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINN. v. RICHARDSON et al. JOHNSON et al. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeals from District Court, Washington County; A. P. Stolberg Judge.
In the matter of proceedings to enforce the payment of taxes delinquent, Washington county, Minn., wherein Martha Augusta Richardson and another, obtained orders requiring Roy F Johnson and others to show cause why their motions for dissolution of attachment and levies made under the order of the court, and for order directing the return of moneys and property received by the sheriff after such attachment should not be granted. From orders denying their motions, and discharging the orders to show cause, Martha Augusta Richardson and another appeal.
Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court .
1. Mason's Minn.St.1927, § 2150, Laws 1929, c 266, Laws 1935, c. 246, providing for the attachment, by the county auditor, of rents received from real estate upon which taxes have become delinquent does not violate the uniformity provision of our State Constitution (article 9, § 1), nor the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. It is not a legislative delegation of powers in violation of art. 3, § 1, of our State Constitution, nor is the statute impracticable of enforcement.
Bundlie & Kelley and L. E. Torinus, Jr., all of St. Paul, for appellants.
P. M. Lindbloom, Co. Atty., and Reuben G. Thoreen, Asst. Co. Atty., both of Stillwater, for respondents.
Bradford, Cummins & Cummins, of St. Paul, amici curiae, in support of contention of appellants.
Harry H. Peterson, Atty. Gen., and William S. Ervin, Deputy Atty. Gen., amici curiae, on behalf of the State.
These appeals have been taken to test the constitutionality of 1 Mason's Minn.St.1927, § 2150, as amended, which provides for the attachment of rents on tax delinquent real estate.
May 14, 1934, at tax judgment sales, each of the three parcels of land involved in these proceedings was bid in by the state of Minnesota for the amount of the 1932 taxes, plus interest, penalties, and costs. September 10, 1935, the district court of Washington county, pursuant to 1 Mason's Minn.St.1927, § 2150, as amended, ordered the issuance of writs of attachment, and on September 12, 1935, the writs were issued directing the sheriff to ‘ attach, collect and safely keep all the rents now due and * * * to become due’ from the tenants of each of said parcels of land ‘ until * * * the sum * * * paid for the state’ at the ‘ tax judgment sales * * * and all subsequent taxes, penalties and interest thereon to date’ should be collected and ‘ that as such rent is collected * * * the same be forthwith delivered to the county treasurer.’ Thereafter the sheriff duly executed said writs and made and filed his return.
The respective owners of the three parcels of land involved applied for and procured, on September 18, 1935, from the district court, separate orders requiring the auditor, sheriff, and treasurer of Washington county to show cause why their motions for a dissolution of the attachments and levies made thereunder and for orders directing the return of moneys and property received by the sheriff under said attachments should not be granted. By orders dated September 28, 1935, each of said motions was denied and the orders to show cause, previously issued, were discharged. These appeals are from those orders.
1 Mason's Minn.St.1927, § 2150, Laws 1929, c. 266, and Laws 1935, c. 246, provides:
‘ When any parcel of land is bid in for the state, until its rights be assigned or the land be redeemed, the sale shall not operate as a payment of the amount for which the same is sold, but at any time after such sale the county auditor may make and file with the clerk where the judgment is entered an affidavit stating the date of the sale, the amount for which such parcel was bid in for the state, and the amount of all subsequent delinquent taxes, that its right has not been assigned, that there has been no redemption, and that the land is rented in whole or in part, and produces rent, and giving the names of the persons paying rent. Upon presentation of such affidavit, the judge or court commissioner for the county shall indorse thereon an order directing an attachment to issue to attach the rents of such lands. The clerk shall thereupon issue a writ directing the sheriff to attach the rents accruing for such land from any person, and to collect therefrom the amount for which the same was bid in for the state and the amount of all subsequent delinquent taxes, stating such amount and the date of sale, with penalties and interest accruing thereon, and his fees, and one dollar for the costs of the affidavit and attachment. * * * The sheriff shall receive such rents as they become due, and may bring suit in his own name to collect the same, and shall pay into the county treasury the amount collected. * * *
‘ Provided further, that if at any time while the sheriff is collecting such rent the lease upon said property shall expire, or, if the sheriff has once commenced to collect such rent and said property becomes vacant, the county auditor may lease said property upon five days' notice to the owner, subject to the approval of the district court.’
It was under the authority of this statute that the attachments in these proceedings were issued. Appellants contend that the statute violates art. 9, section 1, of the Minnesota Constitution providing that ‘ taxes shall be uniform upon the same class of subjects,’ and also the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution.
It is pointed out that under section 2150 if taxes are delinquent upon two similarly situated buildings, of equal value, both used for the same purpose, but one occupied and used by the owner while the other is rented out, the income earned by the latter is subject to attachment, whereas no summary remedy is imposed to collect the taxes upon the former. However, that circumstance results merely from the fact that there is something tangible to attach in the one instance and not in the other. A law cannot be condemned because it does not do the impossible. Appellants argue that the statute results in discrimination because in the case of the building occupied by the owner he can remain in possession, utilize and earn income from it for the full five years or more allowed by the state as a period of redemption after taxes have become delinquent, whereas in the case of the person who has rented out his property, the period of redemption means nothing as the state collects the rent during that period. The privilege to remain in possession and use property during that redemption period is an act of grace on the part of the state. It is not an absolute right. Further, the privilege so granted is not destroyed by section 2150 for so long as the rents are attached as payment of the taxes there will be no necessity of the state forfeiting the property. An Arkansas statute (Arkansas Act of 1913, No. 169, p. 724, § 1) authorized the collection of back taxes on land owned by corporations, which had escaped their just burden of taxation because of having been assessed at inadequate and insufficient valuation. The act did not extend to land owned by natural persons which likewise had been assessed at inadequate and insufficient valuation. In White River Lbr. Co. v. Arkansas ex rel. Appelgate, 279 U.S. 692, 49 S.Ct. 457, 73 L.Ed. 903, it was held that the statute did not deny to the corporations the equal protection of the laws as required by the Fourteenth Amendment. It is elementary that in the field of taxation there is a broader power of classification than in other exercise of legislation. Standard Lbr. Co. v. Pierce, 112 Or. 314, 228 P. 812.
The remedy here invoked produces somewhat the same result as would be obtained by the old process of distress much used at common law. See C. N. Nelson Lbr. Co. v. McKinnon, 61 Minn. 219, 63 N.W. 630. It could serve no purpose unless there was something tangible upon which to levy, such as personalty or rent as is true under section 2150. Similarly, under statutes providing for it, there may be garnishment of rent for delinquent taxes. Russell v. Lewis, 15 Mass. 127. Only those properties producing rent would be subject to it. The ultimate effect of garnishment would be the same as under section 2150. There would be no unreasonable classification.
Many other summary remedies may be resorted to in order to enforce the payment of a delinquent tax. In this state under Mason's Minn.St.1927, §§ 2211 and 2212, deeds conveying title to land may not be recorded unless the taxes on the land conveyed have been paid; under section 2203 no structure, timber, or minerals on which a lien for taxes has attached can be removed from the land affected until the taxes are paid; under section 2204 structures, timber, or minerals removed from such land may be seized and sold to satisfy the taxes on the land. Other remedies such as personal liability, tax executions, supplementary proceedings, sale of personal property, forfeiture of property, and even arrest have been used to compel the payment of delinquent taxes. 3 Cooley, The Law of Taxation (4th Ed.) § 1326 et seq. To effectively use any of those remedies, there must be something tangible against which the process can run. Likewise under section 2150 there must be rent. The fact that a property does not produce rent cannot in itself invalidate a statute merely because other property which does produce rent may be compelled to pay validly levied taxes. In no case is the tax obligation discharged until payment. Under section 2150 those properties that are subject to it...
To continue reading
Request your trial