Spokane County ex rel. Sullivan v. Glover

Citation2 Wn.2d 162,97 P.2d 628
Decision Date04 January 1940
Docket Number27856.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Washington
PartiesSPOKANE COUNTY et rel. SULLIVAN et al. v. GLOVER, County Treas.

Proceeding under the Declaratory Judgments Act, Rem.Rev.Stat. § 784-1 et seq., by Spokane County, on relation of J. W. Sullivan and others, county commissioners, against Frank Glover as county treasurer, to obtain a construction of a statute Rem.Rev.Stat. § 11245, and to determine the extent of the county treasurer's duties and obligations under the statute. From an unsatisfactory judgment, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Appeal from Superior Court, Spokane County; Wm. A Huneke, judge.

A. O Colburn, of Spokane, for appellant.

Ralph E. Foley and Harvey Erickson, both of Spokane, for respondents.

STEINERT Justice.

This action was instituted under the declaratory judgments act (Rem.Rev.Stat. § 784-1 et seq.) to obtain a construction of Rem.Rev.Stat. (Supp.) § 11245 (Laws of 1939, chapter 206, p. 763, § 41), and to determine the extent of the county treasurer's duties and obligations under that section of the statute. Upon a trial Before the court, findings were made, conclusions were drawn, and a decree was entered declaratory of the court's construction of the statute and determining the extent of the treasurer's duties thereunder. The defendant treasurer has appealed.

There is no dispute as to the facts. Prior to 1939, the statute (Rem.Rev.Stat. § 11245), so far as material here, provided: '* * * He [the treasurer] shall, when requested, notify each taxpayer in his county, at the expense of the county, having printed on said notice the name of each tax and the levy made on the same, of the amount of his real and personal property, and the total amount of tax due on the same; * * *.' (Italics ours.)

The 1939 legislature amended that provision of the statute by eliminating therefrom the words 'when requested' so that it now reads: 'The Treasurer shall notify each taxpayer', etc. (Italics ours.) Rem.Rev.Stat. (Supp.) § 11245.

The treasurer of Spokane county, being of the opinion that the provision of the statute as amended was mandatory and required him to notify each taxpayer in the county of the taxes due on his property, advised the county commissioners that he would at once employ such additional help and incur such additional expense as would enable him to compile a complete list of the taxpayers in the county; at the same time he demanded of the commissioners that they provide him the necessary funds, estimated at $10,000. The commissioners, being of the opinion that the expense was unnecessary and would simply be a waste of county funds, denied the request and, instead, commenced this action for judicial determination of the question involved.

The treasurer interprets the statute to mean, and now contends, that it is his mandatory duty to make a complete and exhaustive search of the records in the offices of the auditor, the clerk, and the assessor for the names and last known addresses of all owners of real and personal property in the county, and, if such search does not reveal the true owners and their addresses, to make further search in the vicinity of the property and among the taxpayer's friends and acquaintances; in other words, the treasurer contends that he must do everything possible every year to make and keep a complete, up-to-date, and authentic list of all owners of real and personal property in the county, no matter where such owners reside or what interest in such property any taxpayer may have. He further interprets the statute to mean, and now contends, that if every possible effort is not made to ascertain and notify the real owners and taxpayers in each instance, the courts may, as to those taxpayers who are not notified, hold that the levy is void, or that the taxes, when past due, shall not carry interest and penalties or that any foreclosure proceeding brought thereon is invalid; and, further, that in the event of loss to the county in the manner just described, for his failure to send such notice or to make every possible effort to notify every taxpayer, he himself would be personally liable to the county for his neglect.

The commissioners, on the other hand, interpret the statute to mean, and now contend, that the duty of the treasurer is to send notices to those taxpayers only whose names and addresses appear on the tax rolls as they come to him or otherwise appear in the records of his own office, and that the statute as now amended is not mandatory, but merely directory.

The controversy here relates almost entirely to the matter of notification with respect to taxes on real property, although, to some extent at least, it affects also notification respecting taxes on personal property.

It has been frequently stated by this court, in cases affecting real estate, that a proceeding to assess and collect taxes upon real property is a proceeding in rem; that the owner of the property is chargeable with knowledge of every step in the tax procedure; and that statutory provisions with regard to owners are directory rather than mandatory. Williams v. Pittock, 35 Wash. 271, 77 P. 385; Spokane Falls & N.R. Co. v. Abitz, 38 Wash. 8, 80 P. 192; Shipley v. Gaffner, 48 Wash. 169, 93 P. 211; Tacoma Gas & Electric Light Co. v. Pauley, 49 Wash. 562, 95 P. 1103; Larson v. Murphy, 105 Wash. 36, 177 P. 657; McGuire v. Bean, 151 Wash. 474, 276 P. 555; Reese v. Thurston County, 154 Wash. 617, 283 P. 170; Colby v. Himes, 171 Wash. 83, 17 P.2d 606.

The question now presented is whether that fundamental theory, which underlies our tax procedure, has been changed or modified by the provision of Rem.Rev.Stat. (Supp.) § 11245, referred to above. A consideration of the question may be aided somewhat by a brief reference to the preparatory steps leading to the juncture where the treasurer's authority and duty begin.

The assessment year and the fiscal year contemplated by our present tax statutes commence on January 1 and end December 31. Rem.Rev.Stat. (Supp.) § 11242. All real and personal property subject to assessment and taxation is assessed with reference to its value on the first day of January. Rem.Rev.Stat. (Supp.) §§ 11111, 11112. With respect to real property, the assessor is required to make, in a plat and description book, in numerical order, a complete list of all lands or lots subject to taxation, showing the names and owners, if to him known, and, if unknown, to so state, and also showing the number of acres or lots, or parts thereof, and their respective values; the assessor's plat and description book is required to be kept as a part of the tax collector's records. Rem.Rev.Stat. § 11137.

It will be observed that the assessor is not required to include the addresses of the owners of real property. However, in Rem.Rev.Stat. § 11145, it is provided that, with respect to all property assessable in incorporated cities and towns, the name of the owner, if known, together with his post-office address, shall be placed opposite the amount of the assessment.

Listing of personal property follows a different procedure and is provided for by Rem.Rev.Stat. § 11119 and Rem.Rev.Stat. (Supp.) §§ 11140, 11141. By the last mentioned section the assessor is required, in making his assessment lists of personal property, to give the name and post-office address of the person listing his property for assessment.

The board of county commissioners is required to certify to the assessor, on or Before the second Monday in October, the amount of taxes levied. Rem.Rev.Stat. § 11239. The assessor then extends the taxes upon the tax rolls and forwards the rolls to the county auditor on or Before December 15. Rem.Rev.Stat. § 11240.

The county auditor is required to deliver the tax rolls to the county treasurer on or Before the first Monday in January following the date of the levy of taxes. Rem.Rev.Stat. (Supp.) § 11243. On receiving the tax rolls the treasurer is required to post all real and personal property taxes from such rolls to the treasurer's tax segregation register and carry forward to the current tax rolls a memorandum of all delinquencies on each and every description of property; he must then give notice by publication that the tax rolls have been turned over to him for the collection of taxes thereon. Rem.Rev.Stat. (Supp.) § 11245. This same section includes the provision which is now Before us for construction. The county treasurer is the receiver and collector of all taxes extended upon the tax rolls. Rem.Rev.Stat. ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
44 cases
  • State v. Rice
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • June 28, 2012
    ...647 P.2d 1021 (use of “shall” in specifying the timing of assessment procedures found to be directory); Spokane County ex rel. Sullivan v. Glover, 2 Wash.2d 162, 169, 97 P.2d 628 (1940) (“In our own tax code, the word ‘shall’ is used in almost every section, and it is apparent that it is em......
  • Department of Ecology v. State Finance Committee
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • January 17, 1991
    ...(Italics ours). 5 The use of the word "shall" in a statute generally imposes a mandatory duty. Spokane Cy. ex rel. Sullivan v. Glover, 2 Wash.2d 162, 169, 97 P.2d 628 (1940). While there are circumstances where "shall" is interpreted as not imposing a mandatory duty, 6 counsel for the Commi......
  • Janisch v. Mullins, 10--39954--I
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • December 1, 1969
    ...meaning, it is proper to consider the consequences of construing a statute one way or another. Spokane County ex rel. Sullivan v. Glover, 2 Wash.2d 162, 169, 97 P.2d 628 (1940); 50 Am.Jur., Statutes, sections 368, 370 ...
  • City of Seattle v. Auto Sheet Metal Workers Local 387
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • November 24, 1980
    ...and the consequences that would result from construing the particular statute in one way or another. Spokane County ex rel. Sullivan v. Glover, 2 Wash.2d 162, 169, 97 P.2d 628 (1940); accord, State v. Huntzinger, 92 Wash.2d 128, 133, 594 P.2d 917 (1979); State v. McDonald, 89 Wash.2d 256, 2......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT