Spokane County ex rel. Sullivan v. Glover, 27856.

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Washington
• Writing for the Court: STEINERT, Justice.
• Citation: 2 Wn.2d 162,97 P.2d 628
• Parties: SPOKANE COUNTY et rel. SULLIVAN et al. v. GLOVER, County Treas.
• Decision Date: 04 January 1940
• Docket Number: 27856.

97 P.2d 628

2 Wn.2d 162

SPOKANE COUNTY et rel. SULLIVAN et al.
v.
GLOVER, County Treas.

No. 27856.

Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc

January 4, 1940

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. [97 P.2d 629]

[2 Wn.2d 163] 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 [2 Wn.2d 164] 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 [97 P.2d 630] 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 [2 Wn.2d 165] 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 & [2 Wn.2d 166] 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...