Peterson v. Johnson

• Decision Date: 21 October 1952
• Citation: 39 Cal.2d 745,249 P.2d 17
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Parties: PETERSON et al. v. JOHNSON et al. L. A. 22050.

Page 17

249 P.2d 17

39 Cal.2d 745

PETERSON et al. v. JOHNSON et al.

L. A. 22050.

Supreme Court of California, in Bank.

Oct. 21, 1952.

John F. Poole, Los Angeles, and Alvan M. Palmer, Hollywood, for appellants.

Holbrook & Tarr and W. Sumner Holbrook, Jr., Los Angeles, for respondents.

Ray L. Chesebro, City Atty. Los Angeles, Louis A. Babior, and Spencer L. Halverson, Deputy City Attys., Los Angeles, amici curiae on behalf of respondents.

TRAYNOR, Justice.

Defendants appeal from a judgment quieting plaintiffs' title to 80 acres of land in Los Angeles County.

The land was assessed to Russell F. Johnson in 1931 as an undivided part of 120 acres owned by him. In July of that year, he conveyed the entire parcel to his wife, Myrtle N. Johnson, who failed to pay the taxes as they became due. The delinquent tax list for the year 1931 was published, giving notice that the 120 acre parcel assessed to Russell F. Johnson would be sold to the state by operation of law unless $380.06 of taxes, penalties, and costs were paid. Neither Mr. nor Mrs. Johnson paid this amount or any part thereof.

In 1934, Mrs. Johnson conveyed 40 of the 120 acres to Josephine Palomara, who in turn conveyed them to plaintiff Peterson. Peterson redeemed the 40 acres under the partial redemption statute. Pol.Code, § 3818, now Rev. and Tax.Code, §§ 4146-4155. When Peterson applied for redemption of the 40 acres, the assessor placed a separate valuation on the part sought to be redeemed for each tax delinquent year. The remaining acres were valued at the difference between the original valuation and the valuation placed on the 40 acres. The taxes were prorated so tht each part of the land was charged with the same amount of taxes that each would have borne had the assessor made a separate assessment originally.

In 1937, the state took title to the remaining 80 acres under a tax deed. The deed described only the 80 unredeemed acres, and recited that they had been sold to the state in 1932 for $258.06. This figure was the unpaid balance of the 1931 taxes, penalties, and costs that had been prorated to the 80 acres. In May, 1939, Mrs. Johnson died intestate, leaving her husband and two sons as heirs. Defendant, Warren R. Johnson, one of the sons, was in military service from 1942 to 1945. In 1946, the sons assigned their interests in their mother's estate to their father. In 1945, Peterson and Smith bought the 80 acres from the state, and in 1947 brought this action to quiet their title thereto.

The provisions of the partial redemption statute, Pol.Code, § 3818; now Rev. and Tax.Code, § 4154, require the assessor to place a valuation on the parcel to be redeemed for the purpose of prorating the taxes. Defendants contend that the statute is unconstitutional because it does not provide for an equalization hearing of the split valuation, and that the court therefore erred in rejecting defendants' offer to prove that the valuation placed on the 40 acres was much less than its true value and that an excessive valuation was therefore placed on the remaining 80 acres and in sustaining objections to the intorduction of evidence as to the value of property redeemed.

This contention confuses the rights of an owner before a tax upon his property becomes final and his rights after the property has been sold to the state for nonpayment of the tax. Before an ad valorem tax becomes final, the taxpayer must be given an opportunity to have the assessor's valuation reviewed by an impartial board of equalization or other tribunal. Cal.Const.Art. XIII, § 9; Bandini Estate Co. v. Los Angeles County, 28 Cal.App.2d 224, 230, 82 P.2d 185, and cases cited therein. After the assessment has been equalized, or the taxpayer has failed to avail himself of the right to an equalization hearing, and the tax levied against the property has become final, the taxpayer has no further right to an equalization hearing. If the property is thereafter sold to the state for nonpayment of the tax, it can be redeemed only upon the terms prescribed by the Legislature. 'There is no constitutional right to redeem property that has been sold to the state for the nonpayment of taxes. 'The right of redemption comes entirely from the statute, and it is subject to all the limitations and conditions therein imposed.' Quinn v. Kenney, 47 Cal. 147 (150).' Sutter-Yuba Investment Co. v. Waste, 21 Cal.2d 781, 785, 136 P.2d 11, 14. Thus, one who claims a partial interest in tax-sold property may be required to pay all of the taxes, penalties, and costs to effect a redemption. Mayo v. Marshall, 23 Cal. 594, 595. It is only since 1917 that a purchaser of part of the property sold to the state for nonpayment of taxes could redeem that part for less than the amount necessary to redeem the whole.

The partial redemption provisions enable an owner of tax-sold property to take advantage of a market for part of the property where none exists for the whole. The purchaser not only gives him the purchase price, but reduces the amount necessary to be paid by the vendor should he wish to redeem. Moreover, it is the owner of the tax-sold property who creates the situation in which two persons rather than one become interested in redemption. The Legislature has seen fit to accommodate the parties by a division of the right to redeem, but neither party may demand that the procedure be other than that provided. Under the statute, the valuation of the assessor is final. The parties may, of course, contract in advance as to the amount to be paid by each and thus avoid any uncertainty as to the valuations the...