Stewart v. Wheatley

• Decision Date: 15 December 1943
• Docket Number: 38.
• Citation: Stewart v. Wheatley, 182 Md. 455, 35 A.2d 104 (Md. 1943)
• Parties: STEWART v. WHEATLEY.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

35 A.2d 104

182 Md. 455

STEWART v. WHEATLEY.

No. 38.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

December 15, 1943

Appeal from Circuit Court, Baltimore County; William H. Lawrence Judge.

Petition by Daisy Gray Stewart against James B. Wheatley to redeem certain real estate sold to defendant at tax sale.From a decree dismissing the petition, petitioner appeals.

Decree reversed, and case remanded, with directions.

H Richard Smalkin, of Towson, and Moses Cohen, of Baltimore for appellant.

John D. C. Duncan, of Towson, for appellee.

Before SLOAN, C.J., and DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, MARBURY, GRASON, MELVIN, ADAMS, and BAILEY, JJ.

DELAPLAINE Judge.

At a tax sale held in Towson on September 9, 1941, Thomas C. Hunter, Treasurer of Baltimore County, sold a lot improved with a frame house situated on Hillen Road, assessed against Redmond Gray, deceased, to James B. Wheatley for $47.On August 7, 1942, Daisy Gray Stewart, of Philadelphia, having an interest as heir at law in the property, filed a petition in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County alleging that she had tendered $90.64 to the purchaser in payment of the purchase price and interest thereon in order to redeem the lot, and praying that the purchaser be ordered to accept that amount.The purchaser testified that he had spent $449.85 for repairs necessary to make the house rentable.The chancellor held that the petitioner was not entitled to redeem the property unless she tendered the additional sum of $203.85, constituting the value of the improvements less the rent collected.From a decree dismissing the petition, the heir brings this appeal.

The power of a tax collector to sell property for nonpayment of taxes is a special statutory power exercised in an ex parte proceeding, which divests the owner of his property without his consent, and possibly without his actual knowledge.Steuart v. Meyer,54 Md. 454, 466.The sale itself, however, does not operate as a final and irrevocable divestiture of the owner's title.The State always tries to avoid the forfeiture of property due to the owner's neglect or his inability to pay his taxes promptly, and so the law gives him a final opportunity to save his property by redeeming it from the sale in the manner prescribed by the statute, thereby according him all the liberality consistent with justice to others and a proper regard for the interests of the public.Prior to 1941 an owner of property sold at a tax sale in Baltimore County was allowed the right to redeem it at any time within two years by repaying to the purchaser the amount prescribed by the statute.CodeP.L.L., 1930 Edition, art. 3, sec. 161.In 1941the Legislature amended the law by providing that the owner may redeem within one year from date of sale.Acts of 1941, ch. 161.It is an established rule that a statute authorizing the redemption of property from a tax sale should be construed liberally and generously in favor of the redemptioner to effectuate, if possible, the desire of the State to prevent a forfeiture, and should not be applied with any greater narrowness or severity than the terms of the statute absolutely require, especially when the time allowed for redemption is short, and a penalty is imposed upon the redemptioner and ample indemnity given to the purchaser.Accordingly, when a statute provides that land sold for taxes may be redeemed by the owner, it is within the letter and spirit of the law to hold that a person having any interest in the land is an 'owner' for the purpose of redemption.Any right which amounts in law or in equity to ownership of all or any part of the land, or any right of possession which can be deemed an estate therein, makes the person an 'owner' in so far as it is necessary to give him the right to redeem, for it is inconceivable that the Legislature intended to deny the privilege of redemption to an owner's heirs, who succeed to whatever rights he had in the land.Since it appears from the evidence in this case that appellant has an interest in the real estate, she is entitled to redeem it in accordance with the terms of the statute.Curl v. Watson,25 Iowa 35, 95 Am.Dec. 763;Dubois v. Hepburn,10 Pet. 1, 9 L.Ed. 325, 332;Corbett v. Nutt,10 Wall. 464, 19 L.Ed. 976, 979;2 Blackwell on Tax Titles, 5th Edition, secs. 704-707;Rich v. Braxton,158 U.S. 375, 15 S.Ct. 1006, 1016, 39 L.Ed. 1022.

In some jurisdictions the original procedure is followed whereby a deed is delivered to the purchaser directly after the tax sale and accordingly title passes forthwith, subject to defeasance in case the owner exercises his right of redemption; but if the owner fails to redeem within the time allowed, then the purchaser's title becomes absolute by operation of the statute without any further proceeding to establish it.Under the local law of Baltimore County, however, a purchaser of land at a tax sale acquires only a lien which ripens into a title through the process of foreclosure by judicial proceedings, and he is unable to obtain a deed for the land until after the expiration of the period of redemption and all requirements of the law have been complied with.In a number of States, the Legislature has enacted the Occupying Claimant's Act, under which a purchaser at a valid tax sale may take possession of the property and make improvements thereon during the period of redemption, and if he holds a certificate of sale acknowledged by the County Treasurer, which may be recorded as an instrument of title, he can demand from the redemptioner not only the amount paid for the property with interest, but also the value of the improvements.While it is conceded that such a title is not complete enough to constitute the holder of the certificate an owner, nevertheless his possession is rightful to the extent that he cannot be evicted until he is reimbursed for his improvements.This act was regarded as salutary by the Supreme Court of Kansas, not only because it prevented injustice to the purchasers at tax sales, but also because of the wise public policy of encouraging improvement of real estate, and thereby increasing the public revenues and promoting the general welfare of the State.Ross v. Kelson,79 Kan. 105, 98 P. 772.But the local law empowering the Treasurer of Baltimore County to sell real estate for nonpayment of taxes contains no provision for compensation for improvements made by the purchaser during the period of redemption.This statute, under which the tax sale was held in this case, expressly provides that the landowner may redeem his land by repaying to the purchaser 'the amount paid by him, with interest thereon, at the rate of ten per centum * * * from the day of sale, and the costs of recording the deed from the Treasurer.'Acts of 1941, ch. 161.The Revenue and Tax Law of the State of Maryland also provides that in every case of sale of real estate for nonpayment of taxes the owner or other person having an interest in the property prior to the sale may redeem it at any time within one year after the sale by repaying to the purchaser the amount paid by him with interest at 10 per cent.The statute explicitly declares that the purchaser's interest in the property shall thenceforth cease and he shall reconvey it to the proper party, and the court which...