Weber v. Wells, 11154.
| Decision Date | 08 April 1946 |
| Docket Number | No. 11154.,11154. |
| Citation | 154 F.2d 1004 |
| Parties | WEBER v. WELLS et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Mathew Weber, of San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.
Royal E. Handlos, of San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.
Before GARRECHT, DENMAN, and ORR, Circuit Judges.
In the year 1936, appellees being the owners of lot 9 in block 4611, and lot 11 in block 4616, situate in the City and County of San Francisco, State of California, failed and neglected to pay the general taxes levied as state and municipal taxes for that year. Said taxes having become delinquent, said property was sold to the State of California on the 25th day of June, 1937, pursuant to the provisions of section 3436 of the Revenue and Taxation Code of the State of California. The taxes for the years 1937-1938, 1939, 1940 and 1941, which were levied and assessed against said property, also became delinquent.
On April 4, 1942, the Government of the United States instituted proceedings in the District Court to condemn certain lands, of which the lands above described formed a part, and obtained an order of immediate possession on the same day. A declaration of taking was signed April 15, 1942, pursuant to the act of February 26, 1931, 40 U.S.C.A. § 258a.1 On April 22, 1942, an ex parte judgment was entered ordering immediate possession and delivery of the property.
On August 6, 1942, appellant filed an answer. An amended declaration of taking was filed December 12, 1942, and on November 22, 1943, appellant filed a notice of motion for payment to him of the sum of $1950, that being the amount on deposit in the District Court as compensation for the parcels of land hereinbefore described. On January 6, 1944, appellees, with the exception of Paul Merrill, filed their answer. The trial court, on February 7, 1944, entered its order denying appellant's motion for said money.
On July 14, 1942, the Tax Collector of the City and County of San Francisco, State of California, ostensibly acting pursuant to the provisions of applicable California law, sold the property in question to appellant and delivered to appellant deeds thereto, which were recorded. It is the alleged title secured by said deeds that appellant asserts in claiming the money on deposit with the District Court as compensation for the land.
At the time of the purported tax sale on July 14, 1942, did the State of California have any interest in said land to sell? We think not. From the time of the sale to the State of California on the 25th day of June, 1937, the owners had five years to redeem. The legal title remained in the appellees as taxpayers subject to a lien in favor of the State. In effect "it" was "not a sale but * * * merely a book transaction to facilitate the adjustment of accounts between the tax collector and the auditor." Ducey v. Dambacher, 27 Cal.App.2d 658, 661, 81 P.2d 597. On April 22, 1942, the date of the judgment awarding immediate possession and delivery of the land to the Government, the period of redemption had not run. The legal title to said land, on said date, passed from appellees to the Government and the lien held by the State of California was, by operation of law, lifted from the land and impressed upon the fund received from the Government in payment therefor.2
The Tax Collector of the City and County of San Francisco, on July 14, 1942, in professing to sell the land to appellant, performed an idle act. The State of California at the time had no claim or lien upon the land whatsoever. It had nothing to sell when appellant attempted to buy; hence, h...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. 3 Parcels of Land in Woodbury Co., Iowa
...present case. It is the date upon which title passes to the United States which fixes the exempt status of the property. Weber v. Wells, 9 Cir., 1946, 154 F.2d 1004; South Carolina Public Service Authority v. 11,754.8 Acres of Land, 4 Cir., 1941, 123 F.2d 738, 741; United States v. 909.30 A......
-
Thibodo v. United States
...Co. v. Superior Court, 1912, 19 Cal.App. 648, 128 P. 9, 18; Pomona College v. Dunn, 1935, 7 Cal. App.2d 227, 46 P.2d 270; Weber v. Wells, 9 Cir., 1946, 154 F.2d 1004; United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. City of Asheville, N. C., 4 Cir., 1936, 85 F.2d 966; United States v. Certain Parce......
-
U.S. v. 0.13 Acre, More or Less, Sit. in Kanawha, CIV.A. 2:99-1060.
...follows from an as-yet unresolved circuit split emanating from the 1940s. The first line of authority is represented by Weber v. Wells, 154 F.2d 1004 (9th Cir.1946). In Weber, a parcel was sold in 1937 to the State of California for delinquent taxes. The United States took the property in A......
-
Wilson v. Beville
...States v. 909.30 Acres of Land, etc., D.C., 114 F.Supp. 756; United States v. Certain Parcels of Land, D.C., 44 F.Supp. 936; Weber v. Wells, 9 Cir., 154 F.2d 1004. But none of the cases just cited (those in California or other jurisdictions) involves the point here presented--the right of a......