Nicholas v. Fowler, 6578
Decision Date | 01 December 1960 |
Docket Number | No. 6578,6578 |
Citation | 357 P.2d 331,89 Ariz. 7 |
Parties | Clarence M. NICHOLAS and Mary Ida Nicholas, husband and wife, Mable Taylor, a widow, and Harold Taylor, husband of Olive Taylor, Appellants, v. Florence J. FOWLER, a divorced woman, Appellee. |
Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
John M. Levy and Emmett R. Feighner, Phoenix, for appellants.
Gibbons, Kinney & Tipton, Phoenix, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a judgment quieting the plaintiff-appellee's title to certain real property. That title derives from a deed executed and delivered to her predecessor in title by the Superintendent of Streets of Maricopa County in foreclosure of a lien for special assessment.
The appellants Nicholas were the owners of the property, a vacant lot, when the assessment was levied. Their appeal is based upon the proposition that the appellee's predecessor in title, who bought the land at the foreclosure sale, failed to comply with the requirements of A.R.S. § 11-743. That statute reads:
'Deed to purchaser; notice to owner; redemption after notice; effect of deed;
(Emphasis supplied.)
It is conceded that the appellants Nicholas were never personally served with the notice required by subsection B. Instead, the buyer gave notice by posting. These appellants contend (1) that the affidavit referred to in subsection C was legally insufficient and (2) that the requirements of subsection B as to posting of notice were in fact not met.
(a copy of which is hereto attached) to real property sold to G. M. Carlson under the above captioned Certificate of Sale number, on account of delinquent street improvement assessment, was personally served or disposed of by me, as indicated in paragraphs numbered below, viz:
'1. Served Notice on OWNER ________ AT ________ address where served
'2. Served Notice on OCCUPANT ________ AT ________ address where served
at the hour of __ M., _____, 19__
'3. Posted Notice on Property at the hour of __ M., _____, 19__.
said property being located at _____
'Posted Notice on property at the hour of __ M., _____, 19__.
'Purchaser G. M. Carlson
'Address 2330 N. 7th Ave.
'The foregoing instrument subscribed and sworn to before me this 27th day of July 1955.
'/s/ Lee Hanks
'Notary Public
'My Commission Expires:
'Feb. 6, 1956.
'(Seal)'
The owner appellants' position with respect to this affidavit is stated thus: The statute requires that the affidavit show that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Springer v. Industrial Commission
-
Nicholas v. Giles
...title to a vacant lot in the City of Phoenix, Arizona. The trial court, sitting without a jury, found, consistent with Nicholas v. Fowler, 89 Ariz. 7, 357 P.2d 331, that the tax deed was void because of the failure of the underlying affidavit to show that plaintiffs used due diligence, as r......
-
Henningson, Durham and Richardson v. Prochnow
...Ariz.Const. Art. 2, § 4. Thus, all statutes governing improvement districts are to be strictly complied with. See Nicholas v. Fowler, 89 Ariz. 7, 357 P.2d 331 (1960); Phoenix Title & Trust Co. v. Burns, 96 Ariz. 332, 395 P.2d 532 ARS § 11--713 (1956) specifically provides that '(t)he assess......
-
Gillard v. Estrella Dells I Imp. Dist.
...Ariz.Const. Art. 2, § 4. Thus, all statutes governing improvement districts are to be strictly complied with. See Nicholas v. Fowler, 89 Ariz. 7, 357 P.2d 331 (1960); Phoenix Title & Trust Co. v. Burns, 96 Ariz. 332, 395 P.2d 532 (1964). (Emphasis We cannot accept appellant's reading of Hen......