349 P.3d 500
Mont.2015Background
- In 2007 Michael Ward bought two Anaconda lots secured by a Montana Trust Indenture naming Dale Tarbet (later Tarbet Schrier, LLC) as beneficiary and Montana Abstract & Title Company as trustee; Ward failed to pay 2008–2010 taxes.
- Anaconda-Deer Lodge County assigned the tax lien to Catherine E.W. Hansen Trust in 2011; the county issued and recorded a tax deed to Hansen Trust on November 30, 2012.
- Hansen Trust sued to quiet title to the tax deed; Tarbets defended, arguing Hansen Trust failed to provide statutorily required notice to the trustee/other interested parties.
- Discovery showed Hansen Trust did not obtain a property title guarantee and did not mail certified notice to Montana Abstract & Title Company. The District Court granted Tarbets’ cross-motion for summary judgment and declared the tax deed void under § 15-18-212, MCA.
- The court ordered Tarbets to deposit the redemption amount with the clerk; after the deed was voided the District Court directed payment to Hansen Trust of the deposit plus interest and additional taxes paid by Hansen Trust, denied Hansen Trust’s requests for extra costs (insurance, trust administration, attorney fees), and denied post-judgment motions. Hansen Trust appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 15-18-212 requires a purchaser to obtain a property title guarantee and notify parties listed on it before issuing a tax deed | Hansen: statute/constitutional concerns created disputed issues requiring further discovery and preclude summary judgment | Tarbets: 2009 amendment mandates obtaining a title guarantee and notifying each non-utility party listed on it; Hansen failed to do so | Court: statute’s plain language makes title guarantee/notice mandatory; failure voids deed — summary judgment for Tarbets affirmed |
| Proper redemption amount and costs payable when deed declared void | Hansen: entitled to broader ‘‘costs’’ (insurance, trust admin, attorney fees); final redemption differs from interim bond deposit | Tarbets: purchaser entitled to statutory redemption payment (deposit) plus statutory interest and any additional taxes paid | Court: District Court acted within § 15-18-412 authority; Hansen receives the court deposit plus interest and any post-deposit taxes; discretionary denial of non-statutory costs affirmed |
| Whether post-judgment motions (including constitutional challenge to § 15-18-212) warranted relief or review | Hansen: raised statute’s constitutionality and other errors in post-judgment motions | Tarbets: issues were untimely and were not raised before final judgment | Court: will not consider constitutional challenge raised first post-judgment; post-judgment relief denied except limited Rule 60(a) matters (interest date correct) |
Key Cases Cited
- Lorang v. Fortis Ins. Co., 345 Mont. 12 (2008) (standard for summary judgment review)
- Moran v. Robbin, 261 Mont. 478 (1993) (tax deed statutes must be strictly followed)
- Tax Lien Servs. v. Hall, 277 Mont. 126 (1996) (redemption is a vested right requiring notice)
- Montana Earth Res. P’ship v. N. Blaine Estates, 291 Mont. 216 (1998) (due process and notice in tax deed proceedings)
- Cenex, Inc. v. Bd. of Comm’rs, 283 Mont. 330 (1997) (statutory interpretation begins with plain meaning)