Napier v. Runkel

• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: BEALS, Justice.
• Citation: Napier v. Runkel, 114 P.2d 534, 9 Wn.2d 246 (Wash. 1941)
• Decision Date: 20 June 1941
• Docket Number: 28100.
• Parties: NAPIER et al. v. RUNKEL et al.

114 P.2d 534

9 Wn.2d 246

NAPIER et al. v. RUNKEL et al.

No. 28100.

Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.

June 20, 1941

Action by James L. Napier and King County against Mary A. Runkel individually and as executrix of the estate of Fred S Gilbert, deceased, and others to quiet plaintiff county's title to certain realty. From a judgment of dismissal plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

ROBINSON C.J., dissenting.

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Donald A. McDonald, judge.

B. Gray Warner, of Seattle, Edward E. Henry, of Longview, and Lloyd W. Shorett and Lew E. Flanders, both of Seattle, for appellants.

A. C. Van Soelen, John A. Homer, Hyland, Elvidge & Alvord, and Monroe Watt, all of Seattle, for respondents.

Weter, Roberts & Shefelman and Wayne C. Booth, all of Seattle, amici curiae.

BEALS Justice.

King county, a municipal corporation, and James L. Napier, as plaintiffs, instituted this action Before the superior court for King county, asking a decree quieting King county's title to certain real estate. The first amended complaint (hereinafter referred to as the complaint) alleged that August 31, 1938, King county instituted a general tax foreclosure action against all real estate within the county upon which the taxes for the years 1930 and 1931 were unpaid. Included among these descriptions, was a tract described as 'lots 7, 8 and 9, block 4, Gilbert's Avion City, according to the unrecorded plat thereof.' It appears that the land within the unrecorded plat lies within the limits of the city of Seattle. In the foreclosure proceeding the property was not described save as above quoted. December 29, 1938, a decree was entered in the tax foreclosure proceeding, foreclosing many certificates of delinquency against descriptions named in the decree, including the property above described.

It was further alleged that all of the property described in the decree, including the description above referred to, was offered for sale at tax foreclosure, pursuant to publication and posting of statutory notices of sale, and that a copy of the notice of sale was served upon the city of Seattle, by delivering a copy to the city treasurer. No bids were made for the property with which we are here concerned, and a deed thereof was accordingly issued by the county treasurer, conveying the land to King county. At all times with which we are here concerned, there was on file in the office of the assessor of King county, in a bound volume of unrecorded plat additions, a copy of the plat of Gilbert's Avion City addition to Seattle, King county, Washington, which plat was prepared by a qualified engineer. A copy of the so-called plat is attached to the complaint. It shows neither dedication nor acknowledgment by anyone, and it does not describe the land embraced within the plat save by a reference to a government corner which it is stated is 659.79 feet west of the northwest corner of the plat.

It was further alleged that the city of Seattle at all times had in its possession, through its officers and agents, copies of the unrecorded plat, as a part of the records in the office of the city treasurer, and in the office of the city engineer, and that in extending local improvement district assessments against the property embraced within the unrecorded plat, the officers and agents of the city had used the unrecorded plat description, together with a metes and bounds description.

It was further alleged that Fred S. Gilbert, the owner of the property, and who had prepared the unrecorded plat, died prior to the institution of the action, and that Mary A. Runkel and Joseph C. Sharp, named with the city of Seattle as defendants in the action, were, respectively, executrix and administrator of the estate of Fred S. Gilbert, deceased, and as such 'were the record owners of the property' in question, and as such owners, as representatives of the estate, had, June 30, 1937, paid taxes against the property for the year 1929.

It was also alleged that, July 20, 1939, the property described as lots 8 and 9, in block 4, was offered for sale by the treasurer of King county, and August 17th following, lot 7, in block 4, was offered for sale, and that all three of the lots were sold at public auction, on contract, to plaintiff James L. Napier, the property being described as hereinabove set forth.

Plaintiffs further alleged that, prior to the decree of foreclosure, the defendant city of Seattle had levied assessments against the property, describing the same by metes and bounds, and also by reference to the unrecorded plat. Plaintiffs alleged that these assessments were barred by the county tax foreclosure sale, and that by such sale, the interest of all the defendants above named in the property was terminated. Plaintiffs asked for a decree quieting King county's title to the property.

The defendants demurred to the complaint, and the trial court having sustained the demurrer, and plaintiffs having elected to stand upon their first amended complaint, judgment was entered dismissing the action, from which plaintiffs gave separate notices of appeal.

Error is assigned upon the ruling of the trial court sustaining respondents' demurrer, and upon the entry of judgment dismissing the action.

While appellant James L. Napier appealed from the judgment, he failed to file any cost bond in support of his appeal, and the appeal of James L. Napier is accordingly dismissed. Public Utility District v. Girard, 198 Wash. 149, 87 P.2d 287.

By Rem.Rev.Stat. § 10603, every county auditor is, inter alia, required to '* * * keep a well-bound book in which shall be platted all maps of towns, villages, or additions to the same within the county, together with the description, legend, acknowledgment or other writing thereon.'

The section also required the auditor to properly index the contents of the book of plats. By a proviso contained in this section, the auditor is directed not to receive or record any plat until the same shall have been approved by the proper city or county authorities.

The preparation and filing for record of plats within cities or towns is covered by Rem.Rev.Stat. § 9288 et seq. By § 9290 it is provided that a plat must be acknowledged by the person offering the same for record, and all taxes against the property platted must be paid, as provided in the section last cited and § 9291. By the proper filing of a plat for record, the streets and alleys shown thereon are dedicated to the use of the public, and the proper authorities have previously been afforded an opportunity to check the surveys of the land platted, and ascertain that such surveys, as shown on the plat, are accurate. By these different statutes the rights both of the public and persons who may purchase land embraced within the tract receive some degree of protection.

Of course, one selling land from a plat or map which has not been filed for record may be, as to certain persons, estopped from denying the dedication of streets shown thereon, but as to such a matter, the result would depend upon the facts of each individual case. The offer and acceptance for record of the plat, then, is a regular, orderly step in the statutory procedure for the determination of the title to and ownership of platted real estate.

The disadvantages which follow from the use of a so-called unrecorded plat are obvious. The surveys of the land shown thereon have never been checked by official authority; streets and alleys have not been regularly dedicated as such to the use of the public; and in so far as the plat itself is concerned, the verification of descriptions of land, with reference to the plat, cannot be made by statutory record. Such a plat may be lost or destroyed, there can be no official copy of such a plat, it may be changed from time to time, and there are other objections to its use.

The complaint alleges that the Fred S. Gilbert whose executrix and administrator are respondents herein caused to be prepared the unrecorded plat of Gilbert's Avion City Addition to Seattle, but whether or not he was the owner of all the land embraced within the plat, we are not informed.

Rem.Rev.Stat. § 11136, directs the county assessor to outline a plat of irregular subdivided plats of land, other than regular government subdivisions, and request the owners thereof to have the same surveyed by the county engineer and platted into numbered or lettered lots or tracts, provided that if the county has in its possession correct field notes of such tract of land, a new survey shall not be necessary. The section further provides that if the owner neglects to have such a survey made, the county commissioners may direct the county engineer to make such survey.

Section 11137 directs the assessor to list all real property according to the largest legal subdivision as near as practicable, and to extend in the plat and description book in numerical order a complete list of all land or lots subject to taxation, showing the names of the owners, if known, the number of acres, etc., and the value per acre or lot, continuing: 'Provided, that the assessor shall give to each tract of land where described by metes and bounds a number, to be designated as Tax No. _____, which said number shall be placed on the tax-rolls to indicate that certain piece of real property bearing such number, and described by metes and bounds in the plat and description book herein mentioned, and it shall not be necessary to enter a description by metes and bounds on the tax-roll of the county, and the assessor's plat and description book shall be kept as a part of the tax collector's records.'

Rem.Rev.Stat § 11278, a portion of the statutory procedure provided for the collection of delinquent taxes and the sale of land...