Van Raden Homes, Inc. v. Dakota View Estates
| Decision Date | 24 August 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 940032,940032 |
| Citation | 520 N.W.2d 866 |
| Parties | VAN RADEN HOMES, INC., a corporation, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DAKOTA VIEW ESTATES, a partnership, Hugo Olson, Kenneth V. Nordling, and other persons unknown claiming an estate or interest in, or lien or encumbrance on a property described in the Complaint, Defendants, Benny E. Peterson, Curtis Mitskog, Robert Hastings, Delph Kundert, American Bank and Trust Company, as trustee of Byron Ogren, deceased, Defendants and Appellees. Civ. |
| Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
J. Philip Johnson, of Wold, Johnson, Feder, Brothers, Beauchene & Schimmelpfennig, Fargo, for plaintiff and appellant.
David A. Garaas, of Garaas Law Firm, and Craig A. Peterson (appearance), Fargo, for defendants and appellees.
Van Raden Homes appealed from a district court judgment dismissing its action to quiet title to real property in Cass County. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
This case involves seven undeveloped multiple-dwelling lots in Fargo. The former owners failed to pay real estate taxes for the years 1987 through 1991, and Cass County purchased the property at a tax sale in December 1988. In May 1992, the Cass County Auditor served upon the former owners by registered mail a notice of expiration of the period of redemption. The notice of expiration of the period of redemption was published in the Fargo Forum on July 27, 1992. None of the former owners attempted to redeem the property. Cass County sold the lots to Van Raden after the redemption period expired.
Van Raden brought this quiet title action against all record titleholders and others claiming an interest in the property. The district court dismissed the action with prejudice, concluding that Sections 57-27-02(2) and 57-28-04, N.D.C.C., required the county auditor to publish the notice of expiration of the period of redemption three times and that the failure to do so was a jurisdictional defect.
The dispositive issue on appeal is whether our statutory scheme requires three publications of the notice of expiration of the period of redemption when the county has acquired property through a tax sale. We conclude that only one publication of the notice is required.
Chapter 57-28, N.D.C.C., governs procedures when property sold to the county at a tax sale is not redeemed; Chapter 57-27 governs procedures when property sold to a private purchaser at a tax sale is not redeemed. The former owners concede that prior to 1991 only one publication of the notice was required if the county purchased at the tax sale. The 1991 amendments to Chapter 57-28, N.D.C.C., [1991 N.D. Sess. Laws Ch. 659, Secs. 11, 13], have created some confusion about the number of publications now required.
Section 57-28-06, N.D.C.C., requires a single publication of the notice of expiration of the period of redemption:
Prior to 1991, Section 57-28-04, N.D.C.C., provided general procedures for service of the notice, but was silent as to publication of the notice. The 1991 amendment to Section 57-28-04 eliminated the separate procedural guidelines and incorporated by reference the procedures for service of the notice under Chapter 57-27, N.D.C.C., applicable when a third party has purchased at the tax sale:
Section 57-27-02, N.D.C.C., is a lengthy, broad statute detailing numerous procedures. Subsection (2) provides that, in certain situations, the notice of expiration of the period of redemption must be published three times:
When faced with conflicting statutory provisions on the same subject matter, we make every attempt to harmonize and give meaning to each without rendering one or the other useless. Maurer v. Wagner, 509 N.W.2d 258, 260 (N.D.1993). See also Sections 1-02-07 and 1-02-38(2), N.D.C.C. However, the conflict between these statutes is irreconcilable. Section 57-27-02(2) requires three publications of the notice when service has been made by registered mail. Section 57-28-06 requires a single publication when the property has been purchased by the county and service was by registered mail.
When conflicting statutory provisions cannot be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Van Raden Homes, Inc. v. Dakota View Estates
...defect that voided the county's tax deeds. Van Raden appealed, and we reversed and remanded. See Van Raden Homes, Inc. v. Dakota View Estates (Van Raden I ), 520 N.W.2d 866 (N.D.1994) (holding only one publication of notice of expiration of redemption period was required when county purchas......
-
Blikre v. ACandS, Inc.
...section 28-01.3-08(4), N.D.C.C., would prevail. N.D.C.C. § 1-02-07 (particular controls general). See, Van Raden Homes v. Dakota View Estates, 520 N.W.2d 866, 868 (N.D.1994)( "A particular statute specifically applicable to a statutory procedure must control over a conflicting general provi......
-
K.G., In Interest of
...attempt to harmonize and give meaningful effect to each statute without rendering one or the other useless. Van Raden Homes v. Dakota View Estates, 520 N.W.2d 866 (N.D.1994); State v. Mees, 272 N.W.2d 61 (N.D.1978); see also, Boeddeker v. Reel, 517 N.W.2d 407 (N.D.1994) [reading Title 14 an......
-
Zahn v. Graff, 950078
...Sec. 1-02-02. Our primary goal when interpreting statutes is to give full effect to legislative intent. E.g., Van Raden Homes v. Dakota View Estates, 520 N.W.2d 866 (N.D.1994). Our conclusion in this matter is dictated by these A plain reading of section 39-06.1-03(5)(a), N.D.C.C., is that ......