McGuire v. Bean

• Decision Date: 11 April 1929
• Docket Number: 21678.
• Citation: 276 P. 555,151 Wash. 474
• Parties: McGUIRE et al. v. BEAN et al.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

276 P. 555

151 Wash. 474

McGUIRE et al. v. BEAN et al.

No. 21678.

Supreme Court of Washington

April 11, 1929

Department 1.

Appeal from Superior Court, Pacific County; H. W. B. Hewen, Judge.

Action by Frank L. McGuire and another against C. O. Bean and others to set aside a tax deed. From a decree denying relief plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

Fred M Bond, of South Bend, for appellants.

Welsh &amp Welsh, of Raymond, for respondents.

TOLMAN J.

This is an action to set aside a tax deed. From a decree denying the plaintiffs any relief, they have appealed.

It appears that appellant Kate McGuire, by deed dated January 26, 1888, acquired title to property in the deed described as lot 3, block 57, in the First addition to the town of Seaview, in Pacific county, Wash. Later, her son and coplaintiff acquired from her an undivided interest in the property which, it appears, was never shown of record.

At the time of acquiring title, and at all times since, the appellants have been residents of Portland, Or. The taxes were paid in the name of Mrs. McGuire from the time she acquired title up to and including taxes for the year 1919. Taxes for the years 1920 and 1921 were allowed to become delinquent, but the treasurer's record shows that Mrs. McGuire paid the 1922 taxes, and also shows her then street address in Portland, Or., which has at all times been her home.

In due time a certificate of delinquency was issued for the 1920 taxes, which certificate was held by the county. A general county foreclosure action was thereafter duly commenced which ripened into a judgment on April 8, 1927. It is conceded that the foreclosure proceedings were regular in all respects, except as hereinafter pointed out.

In 1912, for some unknown reason, the property was assessed in the name of one Knapp, and thereafter, notwithstanding the payment of taxes by Mrs. McGuire, Knapp continued to appear as owner on the records of the county treasurer.

The various plats of the town of Seaview and its additions were not introduced in evidence, nor is the date of the filing of any shown. It does appear that the first to be filed was the plat of Seaview. Next was filed a plat of the First addition to Seaview, but there is testimony to the effect that this plat of the First addition did not contain any block 57, and that there never was any block 57, first addition to Seaview. There followed the filing of a third plat, which was a combination of the original town of Seaview, the First addition thereto, and the Second addition to the town of Seaview, 'all in one map,' which plat and map contained but one block 57, and that block 57, according to the plat, was block 57, Second addition to Seaview.

The appellants seem to have regarded the description in the deed by which Mrs. McGuire acquired title as correct, and there is no evidence as to how the tax receipts issued to them, before the foreclosure, described the property.

As we have already indicated, in the foreclosure proceedings and the published notice, the name of Knapp appeared as the owner of this property. The name of McGuire nowhere appeared. No actual notice was given to the McGuires of the pendency of the action or of the sale under the foreclosure judgment which was held on April 30, 1927 (the statute requiring notice of the sale to be given to the record owner having been repealed in 1925), and appellants were without actual notice of any of the proceedings until after the treasurer had issued a deed to the purchaser at the sale.

On April 22, 1927, eight days before the sale, appellants wrote to the county treasurer asking for statement of the taxes due on lot 3, block 57, First addition to Seaview, and in compliance, the treasurer sent a statement showing all taxes then due with interest figured up to May 31, 1927, but whether that statement described the property as being in first or second addition does not appear. There was nothing in the statement, and nothing accompanied it, giving any reference to the proceedings to foreclose, the judgment of foreclosure, or the pending sale. Just when this statement of the amount of the taxes then due was received by the appellants does not appear, but probably it came into their hands before the day of sale. Their evidence shows that they relied upon their knowledge of when taxes were payable in the state of Oregon, and that a few days elapsed after receiving the statement before they, on May 6, 1927, mailed to the county treasurer a check covering the taxes as shown by the...