United States v. Five Acres of Land
Decision Date | 30 July 1943 |
Docket Number | Misc. Civ. No. 6412. |
Citation | 51 F. Supp. 117 |
Parties | UNITED STATES v. FIVE ACRES OF LAND et al. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
Edmund J. Brandon, U. S. Atty., and Philip P. A. O'Connell, Sp. Asst. to U. S. Atty., both of Boston, Mass., for Government.
Joseph Israelite, City Solicitor, and Louis R. Bennett, Asst. City Solicitor, both of Chelsea, Mass., for petitioner City of Chelsea, Mass.
Goodwin, Procter & Hoar, of Boston, Mass., for respondents.
Robt. T. Bushnell, Atty. Gen., for Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
By an amended declaration of taking filed by the Acting Secretary of the Navy of the United States on January 22, 1942, the United States acquired the land in question, owned by the defendants, Richard T. Green Company and M. Thomas Green, Trustee, hereinafter called owners. The City of Chelsea, hereinafter called the petitioner, filed an answer claiming that the owners are indebted to the City of Chelsea for unpaid taxes and interest, for the years 1933 to 1942 inclusive, amounting to the sum of $139,383.85, and that said sum constitutes a lien upon the land involved.
The petitioner then filed a petition seeking an order of this court for the payment to the petitioner of the sum of $139,383.85 from the balance of the sum remaining on deposit in the registry of the clerk's office of this court.
The owners filed an answer denying the validity of the claims of the petitioner, setting up, among other defenses, the defense that certain amounts of taxes claimed were not certified by the tax collector to the Treasurer as required by Massachusetts law.
The land had been sold by petitioner on September 6, 1934, for unpaid taxes, and the tax title deeds to the City of Chelsea were recorded in the Suffolk Registry of Deeds on October 18, 1934.
On April 29, 1940, the petitioner filed in the Land Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, petitions to foreclose the right of redemption to the land sold for nonpayment of 1932 taxes. The owners, in the proceedings in the Land Court, set up improper certification as a defense. These proceedings are still pending in the Land Court.
The owners' claim is that some or all of the amounts due for taxes in the years 1933 to 1942 were not properly certified. The petitioner contends that it is immaterial in the present proceedings whether or not there was proper certification.
The parties have agreed that the issue of materiality of certification may be divided from the other issues of law and fact, and that an adjudication, by way of a declaratory judgment, be made by this court upon the issue of the materiality of certification. The petitioner has, therefore, filed a motion for that purpose. Counsel have agreed that the decision of the court on this motion shall be the law of the case, subject, of course, to the right of appeal on the question of whether or not the issue of certification is material as a matter of law.
By 40 U.S.C.A. § 258a, it is provided that in the case of the taking of property by the United States for public use the "court shall have power to make such orders in respect of encumbrances, liens, rents, taxes, assessments, insurance, and other charges, if any, as shall be just and equitable."
However, in proceedings for distribution of funds deposited in the Federal Court under 40 U.S.C.A. § 258a, the rights of the respective claimants are to be determined by the law of the state where the land lies. United States v. Certain Parcels of Land in San Diego, D.C., 44 F.Supp. 936. See, also, Stevens v. Edwards, 5 Cir., 112 F.2d 534. Therefore, the question of whether or not the failure of the collector to certify the amount of the tax to the treasurer for any year invalidates the tax lien for such tax is to be determined in accordance with the law of Massachusetts, unless the law of Massachusetts is inconsistent with congressional legislation. See United States v. A Certain Tract or Parcel of Land in Chatham County, Ga., D. C., 44 F.Supp. 712, 715.
This controversy involves the correct interpretation of Chapter 60, Section 61 of the Massachusetts General Laws (Ter.Ed.) St.1936, c. 93, which provides as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
City of Chelsea v. Richard T. Green Co.
...268 Mass. 32, 167 N.E. 227; New England Southern Corp. v. Assessors of Lowell, 1 Massachusetts B.T.A. 542, and United States v. Five Acres of Land, D.C., 51 F.Supp. 117. The judge was in error in holding that certifications dated back for the purpose of appearing to comply with the Cable ca......
- United States v. FIVE ACRES OF LAND, ETC.
-
Richard T. Green Co. v. City of Chelsea
...whether or not there was a valid lien. It therefore refused to hear any evidence on the question of certification. United States v. Five Acres of Land, D.C., 51 F.Supp. 117. This issue turns on the proper construction of Chapter 60, Section 61 of the Massachusetts General Laws (Ter.Ed) as a......