Liese v. Sackbauer
| Decision Date | 11 July 1949 |
| Docket Number | 41132 |
| Citation | 222 S.W.2d 84 |
| Parties | Grover Liese and Elsa Liese, Respondents, v. F. P. Sackbauer and Mary Angela Sackbauer, Appellants |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
From the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Civil Appeal, Judge Raymond E. LaDriere
Affirmed
Offering in their petition to do equity plaintiffs-respondents instituted this equity action to set aside, for fraud, a Collector's tax deed to a certain described vacant lot in the city of Glendale, St. Louis County, Missouri, on the ground, among others, that the consideration of $12.33 was grossly inadequate. Defendants-appellants prosecute this appeal from the decree below, which, subject to the payment of specified reimbursement to defendants, set aside the deed as prayed.
In 1925, by installment purchase agreement, plaintiffs contracted to purchase the lot in question from an Investment Company, the then owner. After certain payments by plaintiffs to their grantor and on March 6, 1930 the Investment Company delivered plaintiffs a warranty deed to the lot. That deed was not recorded until 1939. That deed recited that general taxes for 1929 had been paid. After 1930 and until 1938 plaintiffs made certain payments for taxes to their grantor, who had agreed to pay certain taxes on the lot. Their grantor failed to pay those taxes.
Purportedly under the provisions of the Jones-Munger Law (Laws Mo. 1933, p. 425, et seq., Mo. R.S.A. Sec. 11108, et seq) the County Collector of St. Louis County advertised the lot to be sold on November 5, 1934, for 1929 state and county taxes. At that time those taxes for years subsequent to 1929 were also unpaid. See Mahurin v. Tucker, (Mo.) 161 S.W.2d 423. The Collector sold the lot on November 23, 1934 to defendant F. P. Sackbauer (who was then the City Collector of Glendale) for $12.33, which was only the amount of taxes, penalty, interest and costs for the year 1929. That, of itself, under the instant facts was a fraud upon the state and a fraud in law. Ellis v. Powell, (Mo. Sup.) 117 S.W.2d 225, Mahurin v. Tucker, supra. At the time of the sale Sackbauer was delivered a certificate of purchase. He was later delivered a Collector's deed which was recorded on February 13, 1937. The value of the lot in 1934 at the time of the tax sale was $1500. More than two years after the 1934 sale, defendant F. P. Sackbauer, as City Collector of Glendale, accepted city taxes on the lot from plaintiffs but did not advise plaintiffs of the claim of defendants to the lot. Plaintiffs themselves paid the county and state taxes for 1938 to 1941 inclusive. When they tried to pay taxes in 1943 plaintiffs found that the taxes had been paid. Each party had paid the taxes for several years.
Defendants' answer affirmatively pleaded that plaintiffs were guilty of laches in failing to record their deed until 1939, and that, in failing to bring their action until 1945 plaintiffs were barred by R. S. Mo. 1939, § 1002 and § 11117. In their reply plaintiffs pleaded defendants were further barred and estopped to assert any title because defendant F. P. Sackbauer, as City Collector of Glendale, accepted the city taxes on the lot from plaintiffs but did not advise plaintiffs of defendants' claim to the lot.
The Chancellor specifically found (1) the advertisement of the sale was defective, (2) taxes for the years 1930, 1931, 1932 and 1933 were also delinquent, (3) the sale was not continued by public announcement, (4) the sale for $12.33 of real estate valued at $1500 shocked the judicial conscience and constituted fraud, (5) the defendant Sackbauer (being City Collector of Glendale) was in law and equity barred from purchasing the lot, (6) the City Collector, after his purchase accepted the city taxes from plaintiffs, and, that therefore, defendants were estopped and barred from asserting title, and from asserting the defenses set up in their answer. The decree thereupon set aside the Collector's deed to Sackbauer.
Appellants' main contentions here are (1) the advertisement of the sale complied with the statute, (2) respondents were guilty of laches in not sooner recording their deed, and (3) this action was not filed within the statutory time.
In a long line of cases this court has held that if the consideration for a tax deed is so inadequate as to constitute a constructive fraud and shock the conscience of a court of equity the Collector's deed of necessity must be set aside. We here hold that the consideration of $12.33 for real estate of the value of $1500 is so shockingly inadequate that the sale must be held to be inherently void. See Bussen Realty Co. v. Benson, 349 Mo. 58, 159 S.W.2d 813, 821, Mahurin v. Tucker, supra, Ellis v. Powell, (Mo. Sup.) supra. In their brief defendants "do not contend that * * * $12.33 * * * was inadequate", and concede the legal result of such inadequacy.
Defendants seek, however, to avoid the force of their just above stated concession contending that, by not recording their deed until 1939, plaintiffs were guilty of such laches as to be not entitled to the equitable relief they now seek. Under the record facts that contention is without merit. The Chancellor found that after the 1934 sale plaintiffs paid to F. P. Sackbauer (as City Collector) the city taxes on the lot; that Sackbauer accepted and retained that money; that in so doing Sackbauer did not notify plaintiffs he was asserting any claim or that their lot had been sold for taxes in 1934; and that defendants were thereby now estopped to assert title.
Equity requires a consistency of conduct where inconsistency would work a substantial injury to the other party. To...
To continue reading
Request your trial