Schultz v. Evans
| Decision Date | 06 March 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 33938,33938 |
| Citation | 204 Okla. 209,228 P.2d 626 |
| Parties | SCHULTZ v. EVANS et al. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. The purpose of an action to quiet title, under the statute, is to determine who is the real owner of the property and to put to rest all adverse claims. In such an action all matters affecting the title of the parties thereto may be litigated and determined, and the judgment rendered therein is final and conclusive as against the parties thereto and their privies. 12 O.S.1941 § 1141.
2. Where the record admittedly discloses that 149 acres of a quarter section of land and 11 acres of the same quarter section was separately assessed in the name of different owners for taxes for the years 1932 and 1935, and the owner of such 11 acres paid the taxes thereon for one of said years, and thereafter the entire quarter section was advertised for sale for taxes for said years at the 1939 tax resale in the name of the owner of the 149 acre tract for the whole amount of all taxes originally assessed against both tracts for both years, such notice of sale and sale was for an amount in excess of the amount of the taxes, penalties and costs authorized by statute and vitiates the sale and renders the resale tax deed based thereon invalid.
Cress & Rosser, Perry, for plaintiff in error.
W. D. Greenshields, Ponca City, for defendants in error.
The defendants in error, Clara M. Evans, William Newton Evans, Clarence Emery Evans, Sherman Edgar Evans, Lawrence Walter Evans, James Oris Evans, Bessie K. Alling, Palmer Alling, Charles Alling, Hazel Alling, Andrew Jackson Evans, Fred W. Evans, Augusta Evans, Delmar Lee Evans, Julia Evans, Emory El Alling, Walter E. Alling, and Bank of Commerce, Tonkawa, Oklahoma, secured a judgment against the plaintiff in error, Richard Schultz, setting aside a resale tax deed, determining the heirs and quieting title in them to the following described property located in Noble County, Oklahoma, and described as follows: 'The Northeast Quarter (NE 1/4) of Section Ten (Sec. 10), Township Twenty-four North (Twp. 24N) Range One West (R. 1W), containing 160 acres more or less.'
The parties here occupied reverse relative positions in the trial court, and hereafter they will be referred to as they there appeared.
The plaintiffs alleged in substance that they were the owners in fee simple of the above described realty by reason of their inheritances from the record owner thereof, J. C. Evans; that defendant, Richard Schultz, claims title to said property through a resale tax deed issued to him by the county treasurer after 1939 tax resale held on the 20th day of April, 1939; that the 1939 resale was based upon delinquent ad valorem taxes for the years 1932 and 1935, a part of which had been paid; that at the time of the resale and the execution of the resale tax deed, the record disclosed that one B. B. Alsop had secured a tax certificate by assignment from the county treasurer covering delinquent ad valorem taxes for the year 1936 only, and that for the year 1937 the certificate holder, B. B. Alsop, paid the 1937 taxes, which were endorsed on his tax certificate, the total amount for both years being $139.59; that it was the duty of said treasurer to include the full amount due on the certificate when the property was offered for resale; that by reason thereof the resale was void.
It was further alleged that J. C. Evans from time to time when he went to pay the taxes inquired of the county treasurer if all taxes had been paid and was advised that there were no taxes due and was thereby misinformed in that the taxes for 1932 and 1935 and the amount due B. B. Alsop on his tax certificate for the years 1936 and 1937 were all outstanding; and, but for the aforesaid reason said sums would have been paid. Therefore, said sale was invalid; that said resale tax deed is further invalid for the reason that the county treasurer refused to accept said sums from said J. C. Evans necessary to pay said taxes represented by said tax certificate, and from year to year prior to the resale, the said J. C. Evans paid all the taxes represented to be due on said property and would have redeemed said property from the lien created by the tax certificate of B. B. Alsop had he been permitted to do so by said county treasurer; that said sale and resale were invalid because the property was illegally assessed and not sold for the amount of taxes, penalties, interest and costs authorized by law in that for the years 1932 and 1935 the property involved was carried on the tax rolls in the name of J. C. Evans, et al., and the Gypsy Oil Company as follows: 'J. C. Evans, et al, part NE 1/4 10-24N. 1W, 149 acres; Gypsy Oil Company, part NE 1/4 10-24N. 1W, 11 acres;'
Plaintiffs further alleged that the delinquent tax sale held on November 6, 1933, shows that part of the NE 1/4 10-24N. 1W, was sold to the county for 1932 taxes, and resold at the 1939 tax resale; that this property was assessed as aforesaid; that in the 1939 tax resale said property was described in the notice of sale as a full 160 acres in the following language: 'J. C. Evans, NE 1/4 Sec. 10, Twp. 24, Rge. 1W; 1932 and 1935; total del. $240.97; total due $257.35.' and sold as NE 1/4, Sec. 10, Twp. 24, Rge. 1W for $257.35
Plaintiffs tendered the amount of taxes, interest and costs and further alleged that for the aforesaid reasons said purported sale, resale and resale tax deed based thereon were void.
Demurrer being overruled, the defendant answered, asserting that he was the owner of the property involved by virtue of a good and valid resale tax deed obtained through the 1939 tax resale; that plaintiffs have no right, title or interest in the property and that his title should be quieted; that the issues involved have been fully adjudicated in the District Court of Noble County, Oklahoma in case number 5977, Richard Schultz v. Del Evans, in favor of the defendant, particularly as to the one-sixth interest of the defendant in that case, Del Evans, or Delmar Lee Evans, who is one of the plaintiffs in this case.
Upon the issues thus joined, the case was tried to the court which found generally in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendant, cancelling the resale tax deed and quieting title in plaintiffs.
After unsuccessful motion for a new trial, de...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kizzire v. Sarkeys
...199 Okl. 278, 185 P.2d 686; Williamson v. Hart, 199 Okl. 328, 186 P.2d 71; Chapman v. Calhoun, 204 Okl. 63, 226 P.2d 974; Schultz v. Evans, 204 Okl. 209, 228 P.2d 626; North v. Kidd, 204 Okl. 623, 232 P.2d 931; Anderson v. Hill, 205 Okl. 561, 239 P.2d 1016; Sarkeys v. Simpson, 206 Okl. 425,......
-
VCF v. McClellan, No. 96
...ADAMS, J., sitting by designation, concurs in result; BUETTNER, J., concurs. 1. We recognize the rule set forth in Schultz v. Evans, 1951 OK 61, 228 P.2d 626, that "all matters affecting the title of the parties [to a quiet title action under 12 O.S. § 1141] may be litigated and determined,......
-
Dorchester Hugoton, Ltd. v. Dorchester Master Ltd. Partnership
...a quiet title action is to determine who is the real owner of the property and to put to rest all adverse claims. Schultz v. Evans, 204 Okla. 209, 228 P.2d 626 (Okla.1951). In a quiet title action, all matters affecting the title of the parties thereto may be litigated and determined and th......
-
Hodge v. Wright
...property. The purpose of a quiet title action is to determine who is the real owner of property and put to rest adverse claims. Schultz v. Evans , 1951 OK 61, ¶ 13, 228 P.2d 626, 204 Okla. 209, quoting Home Dev. Co. v. Hankins, 1945 OK 153, 159 P.2d 1013, 195 Okla. 632. In this case, the tr......