Wilbur v. Van Vechten
| Decision Date | 26 February 1932 |
| Docket Number | 23374. |
| Parties | WILBUR v. VAN VECHTEN. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 2.
Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Robert S. Macfarlane Judge.
Action by I. R. Wilbur against D. A. Van Vechten. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Peters Evans & McLaren, of Seattle, for appellant.
Meyers & Couden, of Seattle, for respondent.
Respondent instituted this action, as the owner and holder of a number of bonds issued years ago by the town of Tolt, the name of which town was changed to Carnation and now renamed Tolt, in King county, against a local improvement district theretofore established by the town, to foreclose certain alleged delinquent local assessments which had been levied by the town in connection with this special improvement. Appellant was made a defendant because of his record ownership of certain lots in the improvement district on which assessments were still unpaid and delinquent. The facts are not in conflict and may be briefly stated as follows:
In the early part of 1924, King county conducted a general tax foreclosure proceeding which resulted in these lots being acquired by King county are the tax foreclosure sale. The town of Tolt was not named as a defendant and no summons of complaint was served upon its treasurer at any time Before judgment. In April, 1924, after such tax foreclosure sale King county conveyed the twenty-four lots in controversy, and fifteen others, to appellant, who bid them in, by county treasurer's deed. Appellant paid King county $990 for the property, of which $606.13 went to King county on account of its general taxes and the balance of $319.87 went to the local improvement fund of the town. Since that time appellant has paid taxes on the property from year to year, in reliance upon his supposed unincumbered title, in the total sum of $254.84. The tax deed recites that the sum of $319.87 had been paid over to the town of Tolt in full liquidation of all local assessment liens theretofore existing against any of the lots. Appellant continued to pay taxes on all these lots under the belief that his title was unincumbered, until the commencement of this action in May, 1929. Previously, the same plaintiff (respondent) had instituted another foreclosure action against the same local improvement district in November, 1924, which he allowed to pend until a judgment of foreclosure was entered in November, 1925. In that former action the same counsel appeared for plaintiff as appeared here. The property now in controversy was omitted from the first foreclosure for the reason, as stated by counsel for respondent as a witness in this case, that he had some doubt that the local assessment lien as to these lots had been destroyed by the general tax foreclosure sale theretofore conducted by King county. This doubt of counsel for respondent was removed by the decision of this court in Everett v. Morgan, 133 Wash. 225, 233 P. 317, 237 P. 508, decided in March, 1925. It was there decided that unless a copy of the complaint in a county tax foreclosure action was served upon the town treasurer the foreclosure proceedings would not operate to destroy any local assessment lien which the town might have levied against the property in question.
Appellant alleged a number of affirmative defenses, but of these he is now urging only the following:
1. The three-year statute of limitations as controlling in suits attacking a tax title under Rem. Comp. Stat. § 162.
2. Laches on the part of respondent in standing by during a period since 1924 and allowing appellant to continue to pay taxes upon the property in the belief that his title was cleared of any local assessment liens as recited in the deed by which King county had conveyed him the property.
3. As an alternative defense the appellant contends that if neither of the foregoing defenses be sustained, then he should be subrogated to the position held by King county, namely, the holder of a general tax lien prior to the assessment lien herein sought to be foreclosed, for the full amount that he has paid to King county by way of taxes aggregating $254.84, with interest on each amount at the legal rate of 6 per cent. per annum from the date of the respective payments, which amounts to $300.33.
The trial court refused to sustain any of the contentions of appellant, entered a judgment foreclosing the local assessment liens against the lots owned by appellant, and this appeal results.
Appellant first invokes the provisions of section 162, supra, which, in brief, requires actions to set aside or cancel the...
To continue reading
Request your trial