Shapiro v. National Color Printing Co., Inc.

• Decision Date: 20 July 1948
• Docket Number: 185.
• Citation: Shapiro v. National Color Printing Co., Inc., 191 Md. 194, 60 A.2d 679 (Md. 1948)
• Parties: SHAPIRO et al. v. NATIONAL COLOR PRINTING COMPANY, Inc., et al.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

60 A.2d 679

191 Md. 194

SHAPIRO et al. v. NATIONAL COLOR PRINTING COMPANY, Inc., et al.

No. 185.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

July 20, 1948

Appeal from Circuit Court of Baltimore City; Robert France, Judge.

Suit by the National Color Printing Company, Inc., against Hannah Shapiro and others and the Tenants Realty Company, wherein the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore intervened as partyplaintiff, brought to foreclose rights of redemption of properties sold for nonpayment of taxes.From decree of foreclosure, defendants appeal.Decree reversed and cause remanded.

Walter A. Feldman, of Baltimore (Soloman Shapiro, of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellants.

J. Paul Schmidt, of Baltimore (Weinberg & Green, of Baltimore, on the brief), for appelleeNational Color Printing Co.

M Henry Goldstone, Asst. City Sol., of Baltimore (Thomas N Biddison, City Sol., of Baltimore, on the brief), for appelleesMayor and City Council.

Before MARBURY, C.J., and DELAPLAINE, COLLINSGRASON, HENDERSON, and MARKELL, JJ.

MARKELL, Judge.

This is an appeal from a decree of foreclosure of all rights of redemption of the properties Nos. 722, 724 and 726 Ajax Street, Baltimore, sold for non-payment of taxes.The bill was filed November 6, 1946 under the Act of 1943, ch. 761, as amended, 1947 Supplement, Art. 81 secs. 71A-90W.At the time of sale these properties were unimproved; former improvements had been razed.All three properties were assessed to Carl P Bowen, in whom was vested a subleasehold interest in No. 722 and a leasehold interest in Nos. 724 and 726.A sub-rent of $27 on No. 722 was vested in Hannah and Raymond Shapiro, an original ground rent of $27.50 on No. 726 in Solomon Shapiro and other Shapiros, and an original ground rent of $27.00 on Nos. 722 and 724 in Tenants Realty Company.The City Collector sold at auction to the CityNo. 722 on October 16, 1941 and Nos. 724 and 726 on April 17, 1941.The sale of No. 722 was reported to the Circuit CourtNo. 2 on October 21, 1942, the sales of Nos. 724 and 726 on May 4, 1942; all three were ratified on April 4, 1945.Deeds from the Collector to the City were executed on April 27, 1945.Certificates of sale (1947 Supplement, Art. 81, sec. 83) were executed, for No. 722 on November 19, 1945, for Nos. 724 and 726 on April 26, 1946.All three certificates were assigned by the City to National Color Printing Company on May 13, 1946.Art. 81, sec. 84.

The bill was filed by National Color Printing Company(the City intervening as a partyplaintiff) against Bowen, all the Shapiros and Tenants Realty Company, by name, and 'all other persons having an interest' in the properties (Art. 81, secs. 90,90C) and an order of publication was issued and published.Art. 81, sec. 90G.Bowen's whereabouts, if he is living, were and are unknown.All the Shapiros and Tenants Realty appeared and answered.Under the Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act [Art. 87A, sec. 5(1)]counsel was appointed and answered for Bowen.The bill alleged, inter alia, that the right of redemption had 'expired as the result of the decrees' ratifying the sales.The answers denied that the period of redemption had expired and the Shapiros and Tenants Realty averred that they are 'prepared to pay the redemption prices' for the properties 'together with interest at the rate of six percent (6%)per annum from the date of each sale to the dates of redemption, and also all taxes and other municipal liens accruing subsequently to the date of such sales, together with interest and penalties thereon, and the total disbursements made by the holders of the certificates of tax sales for said properties, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 761 Laws of Maryland, 1943, and amendments thereof as aforesaid.'By the decree of foreclosure, entered November 26, 1947, 'all rights of redemption on the part of the defendants' are foreclosed.Defendants(including Bowen, by his appointed counsel) have appealed.

On this appeal defendants deny (a) the validity of these tax sales because of alleged defects in the Collector's notices to the taxpayers and in the advertisements of sale, and (b) the constitutionality of the Act of 1943'to the extent of authorizing the foreclosure of rights of redemption [from] tax sales made prior to the enactment of the Act.'It is unnecessary to consider the objections to the validity of the tax sales, for the reason that the Act of 1943 not only is constitutional (as was held with respect to the similar Act of 1941, ch. 540, in Gathwright v. Baltimore,181 Md. 362, 30 A.2d 252, 145 A.L.R. 590), but gives defendants a right of redemption which they would not have had, if the tax sales were valid, unless plaintiffs had invoked the Act of 1943.

With exceptions about to be mentioned, the Act of 1941, ch. 540, and the Act of 1943, ch. 761, are for present purposes identical.The Act of 1941 was applicable only to Baltimore City, the Act of 1943 to both Baltimore and the counties.Each was applicable to all taxes which were in arrears at the time the Act took effect, notwithstanding the fact that such taxes were levied prior to the effective date of the Act.Act of 1941, sec. 57A;Act of 1943, sec. 4.The repealing clause (section 3) of the Act of 1943, however, provided that 'all laws [including the Act of 1941] repealed by this subtitle shall neverthless remain in force in respect to any and all tax sales made or instituted prior to the effective date [December 31, 1943] of this Act.'Each Act provided that whenever, prior to the taking effect of the Act, any property was sold for the non-payment of taxes and 'said sale has not been ratified and confirmed,' any purchaser at any such prior sale was empowered to proceed under the provisions of the Act to foreclose all rights of redemption in the property purchased.The Collector, upon surrender to him of a receipt evidencing payment of the necessary part of the purchase price, shall deliver to such purchaser a certificate signed by the Collector, which shall have the same force and effect as other certificates issued under the provisions of the Act and shall be subject to all of the provisions of the Act relating to such other certificates of sale.The provisions of the Act shall not effect the right of any purchaser at a tax sale held prior to the taking effect of the Act to proceed under the provisions of laws existing prior to the taking effect of the Act.Any such purchaser may, at his option, proceed under the provisions of the Act or under the provisions of such prior existing laws.Act of 1941, sec. 62B;Act of 1943, Art. 81, sec. 89H.The Act of 1943, but not the Act of 1941, contains a provision, similar in substance and in words to section 89H, when the prior sale 'has been ratified and confirmed, whether or not a deed has been delivered to the purchaser.'Art. 81, sec. 89I.Though the last two sentences in section 89H are not repeated in section 89I, it is clear that the purchaser has the option to proceed either under the provisions of prior laws, or under the provisions of the Act--subject to all the provisions of the Act relating to certificates of sale.

Among the provisions contained in such certificates themselves are 'The property described herein is subject to redemption.Upon redemption the holder of this certificate will be refunded the sums paid on account of the purchase price together with interest thereon at the rate of six per cent per annum from the date of payment to the date of redemption, together with all other amounts specified by [the Act].The balance due on account of the purchase price and all taxes, together with interest and penalties thereon, accruing subsequent to the date of the sale, must be paid to the Collector before a deed can be delivered to the purchaser.After _____, 19__, a proceeding can be brought to foreclose all rights of redemption in the property.This certificate will be void unless such a proceeding is brought within two years from the date of this certificate.'Art. 81, sec. 83;Act of 1941, sec. 59.Each Act provided that 'the owner or other person having an estate or interest in the property sold by the Collector may redeem the said property at any time until the right of redemption has been finally forclosed under the provisions of this [Act] by paying to the Collector the amount required for redemption as hereinafter set forth.'Art. 81, sec. 898;Act of 1941, sec. 61.The amount required for redemption was set forth.Art. 81, sec. 89C;Act of 1941, sec. 61A.The above quoted averments in the answers are in accord with this requirement.Special provision was made for redemption after an action to foreclose is instituted, the person redeeming to apply to the court to fix the amount necessary for redemption.Art. 81, sec. 89D;Act of 1941, sec. 61B.Before the Act of 1941 the time for redemption was limited to 'a year and a day from the day of sale.'Baltimore City Charter(1938 Ed.) secs. 59, 63, 64.Cf.1939 Code, Art. 81, secs. 82,204(both repealed by the Act of 1943).In Gathwright v. Baltimore,181 Md. 362, 370, 371, 30 A.2d 252, 256, 145 A.L.R. 590, in rejecting a contention that the Act of 1941 was unconstitutional as applied to 'one who has purchased a property at a tax sale held under the provision of the old law,'this court said: '* * * the breach of the...