Landers v. City of Boston

• Citation: 165 N.E. 676,267 Mass. 17
• Parties: LANDERS v. CITY OF BOSTON et al.
• Decision Date: 28 March 1929
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

267 Mass. 17

165 N.E. 676

LANDERS

v.CITY OF BOSTON et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

March 28, 1929.

Exceptions from Land Court, suffolk County; Clarence C. Smith, Judge.

Petition in land court by Mary Landers against the City of Boston and others for registration of certain land. On defendants' exceptions. Exceptions overruled.

A. W. Eldredge, of Boston, for petitioner.

W. J. O'Malley, Asst. Corp. Counsel, of Boston, for respondents.

PIERCE, J.

This is a petition in the land court to register the title to several lots of land in the city of Boston, including lot No. 100 West Selden street, lot No. 2 Crossman street, and lot No. 53 Delhi street. The city of Boston holds numerous tax titles on all these lots, and objects to the confirmation of so much of the master's report as holds that the above-mentioned tax deeds on the lots in question were invalid because the city of Boston already had tax deeds upon the said lot.

The city of Boston excepted to the refusal of the court to rule: (1) ‘That no tax deed held by the City of Boston in the above entitled cause is invalid because the City of Boston was the holder of a prior tax title upon the same property’; (2) ‘that if the City of Boston sold the property for unpaid taxes or assessments and on account of some noncompliance with the statute the said deeds were invalid and later the City of Boston sold the same premises again for unpaid taxes or assessments and conformed to the terms of the statute in the later sale, the later deeds are valid deeds'; (3) ‘that the City of Boston had the right to sell the property for unpaid annual taxes and for unpaid assessments and to give separate deeds for the unpaid annual taxes and for the unpaid assessments'; (4) ‘that a tax deed for an assessment is different in its nature than a tax deed for an annual tax in that an assessment follows and is a lien upon the land upon which it is assessed and the annual tax is against the person who owns the land when the assessment for the annual tax is made’; and (5) ‘that section 61 of chapter 60 of the General Laws does not by its terms prevent a city from selling property for taxes or assessments and the giving of a tax deed for the same property upon which it already is the holder of a tax title.’

[1] St. 1919, c. 263, entitled ‘An act relative to the liens of cities and towns on real estate taken for non-payment of taxes' (now G. L. c. 60, § 61), reads: ‘Whenever a city or town shall have purchased or taken real estate for payment of taxes the lien of the city or town on such real estate for all taxes assessed subsequently to the assessment for payment of which the estate was purchased or taken shall continue, and it shall not be necessary for the city or town to take or sell the said real estate for non-payment of said subsequent taxes, costs and interest; and on either redemption from, or foreclosure of the right of redemption under, such taking or purchase, said subsequent taxes, costs and interest shall be paid to the city or town, and the payment shall be made a part of the terms of redemption.’ This statute was enacted at the session of the Legislature which convened next after the decision, on June 25, 1918, of Chadwick v. Cambridge, 230 Mass. 580, 119 N. E. 958, wherein it was held that where a city becomes the purchaser of land sold by its collector of taxes at a tax sale, it receives a title subject to the later and paramount lien that may arise from taxes assessed after those for the further collection of which the sale was made.

The purpose of the statute is twofold: (1) To relieve the city or town from redeeming land which it has purchased for payment of taxes from the paramount lien which arises from taxes assessed after those for the collection of which the sale was made; and (2) to save to the taxpayer and owner the costs and expenses which are an incident of any sale for subsequent taxes. When the city or town purchases land for the nonpayment of taxes under the quoted statute it manifestly is unnecessary for the city or town to take or sell the land purchased for nonpayment of subsequent taxes, costs and interest, for the reason that on a petition of the city or town in the land court for foreclosure of rights of redemption (G. L. c. 60, § 64 et seq.), the petition will be granted unless the person entitled to redeem ‘shall * * * within a time fixed by the court’ pay to the petitioner ‘an amount sufficient to cover the original sum, costs, interest at the rate of eight per cent per annum, and all subsequent taxes, costs and interest to which the petitioner may be entitled under section sixty-one or sixty-two, together with the costs of the proceeding and such counsel fee as the court deems reasonable’ (G. L. c. 60, § 68).

Assuming the purchase by the city or town to be valid, the intent of the statute is plain that it shall not again sell the purchased real estate for payment of taxes but shall have a lien thereon until a redemption or foreclosure of the right to redeem. This view of the purpose of G. L. c. 60, § 61, is supported by St. 1927, c. 126, § 2 (amending section 50 of G. L. c. 60), which reads: ‘If the town becomes the purchaser, the deed to it, in addition to the statements required by section forty-five, shall set forth the fact that no sufficient bid was made at the sale or that the purchaser failed to pay the amount bid, as the case may be, and shall confer upon such town the rights and duties of an individual purchaser. Every such deed and every instrument of taking described in section fifty-four shall be in the custody of the town treasurer, and there shall be set up on the books of the town, whether kept by the treasurer or otherwise, a separate account of each parcel of land covered by any such deed or instrument, to which shall be charged the amount stated in the deed or instrument, the cost of recording the same, all uncollected taxes...