*1 rights and over above no sums there were quoted presupposes that there section The amount. rights can be reserved. are respondent. Costs appeal The is dismissed. McDONOUGH, WADE, WOLFE, PRATT, J., C. JJ., concur. al. et et ux v. SHEFFIELD
TORONTO
594)
(222
P.
Decided
1950.
2d.
No.
October
7233.
*2
S.,
Law,
See
C. J.
Constitutionality
Constitutional
Sec. 522.
of statute
barring
against
defense
an action
property
holder of tax title to recover
possession
from owner has retained
See,
of land. Note 126 A. L. R. 649.
also,
The here is: Does 104—2— Section 5.10, Chapter 19, 1943, page 22, Laws of Utah by Chapter 8, amendment thereto 1947, page Laws of Utah 19, bar plaintiffs’ defendants’ quiet defense to action to their tax title to the real involved in this action? Many problems suggested of construction are hereinafter legis- bench, bring bar attention of the them to the subject, legislation on this further in case there is
lature is not they their determination not decided because are but necessary disposal case. for the of this Lake quiet land in a tract of Salt title to
Plaintiffs sue ownership possession in themselves. City, alleging denying plaintiffs’ answered The defendants Sheffield they in the an interest ownership, claim admitted deny plain- inferior to property, their interest but alleged defendant, City, Lake The Salt tiffs’ claim. unpaid special assessments it has a lien on default- The other defendants it in detail. described None of the defendants interest. ed or disclaimed merely relief, prayed that but affirmative asked for *3 reply plaintiffs complaint dismissed. In plaintiffs’ extinguished by City’s alleged lien was that Salt Lake described, its and that Tax Deed hereinafter Auditor’s 2—5.10, 2—5, by barred claim was Sections 104— 104— 19, 1943, 18, 2—6, Chapters and 20 Utah and Laws of 104— the statute of pages 21 and 22 and sections of at other limitations. plaintiff produced evidence to the effect that
At the trial plain- city property unimproved for which this was vacant County paid to Lake and introduced cash tiffs Salt $400.00 County Lake dated Decem- of Tax Sale Salt Certificate delinquent year, 21, 1923, an taxes for that for the ber May 24, county 1928, dated Tax Deed Auditor’s conveying Quitclaim County from Salt Lake Deed 1946, July 5, plaintiffs, rested. The property to dated only stipu- an of the defendants was oral evidence on behalf by parties that neither of the Auditor’s lation in court 6006, affidavits, required sections 5982 and C. L. U. 8—7, 1943, 1917, now Sections 80—7—9 and U. C. A. 80— attached to the assessment roll for 1923. Defendants’ were plaintiffs’ claim that under evidence title was invаlid Staley, and the action must be dismissed. See Telonis v.
463
537,
513; Equitable
144
and Cas. Ins.
104 Utah
P. 2d
Life
White,
Schoewe,
526;
Tree v.
Co. v.
105 Utah
P. 2d
Ogden City,
398;
Petterson
171 P. 2d
v.
Utah
599;
Ellison, 104 Utah
Utah
176 P. 2d
Anson v.
The found that are the owners and court possession property, and each the defendants attacking Tax of them are barred from the Certificate of Sale and the Auditor’s Tax Deed Sec- 2—5, 2—5.10, tions Laws of 104— 104— 104— 1943, supra Utah and the amendment to 104—2—5.10 in quieted plaintiffs’ pro- Laws of Utah 1947 and title perty. judgment From this defendants Sheffield and Salt City appeal. Lake plaintiffs’
Under the above decisions defective and 2—5.10, supra, unless Section bars the defendants interposing action, plaintiffs’ from that defense to judgment 2—5.10, must be reversed. after Section 104— being year in effect period, for the full four was amended by Chapter 8, Utah, page Laws of 1947 at 19. I have set composite original out below in form thе act of 1943 and the ordinary 1947 amendment. The print words in are in original both the and the amendment. Those with lines through original them were in the act but not in the amend- ment, and the italicized placed words were in the statute get the amendment. So originally the- act passed, read the words ordinary which are in print and the *4 running through words with a them; line get and to amendment, read ordinary print the words in and the italicized ones: “No action for recovery of real property struck off and sold the Coun
ty 10—68(6), provided under by provisions Section Utah Code of 80 — or 1943, Annotated to the conveyed County prior September 1, 1939, by auditor’s deed under the provisions Section 10—66, Revised Statutes of 80 — Utah or for 1933, the possession shall thereof, be maintained, of and no involving defence or counterclaim to sny action tbe recmr£irT?'ci prcpsi,i"u', or tbs defense оí title to sold property, at sucb c** public the recovery such or for the possession thereof shall be of
464 up brought interposed up or SSt the same be unless set maintained interposed years held the date on which ssle was four from within sale, years such date the issuance or within from four may Provided, however, maintained deed. an action er auditor’s da- (cid:127)£< n »*'**» n Pansa ¿ib n fUn tb’“ "f xaT Wí¿-Iíi,'v un xraara ívCm SCw "tV’IvIS Í2“ originally rely en the act as it was Plaintiffs must amendment because the aid of the acted without changes were not contained the amendment which made original for the full four in the has not been effect years. expressly amendment extends the The 1947 recovery property “con bar for the of real to actions County 1, 1939, by veyed prior September audi provisions 10—66, Re tor’s deed Section 80— probably of Utah 1933” which would cover vised Statutes case, County this for the auditor’s tax deed to Salt Lake May 24, 1928, pursuant 6030, dated was made to Section 1917, slight amendments, L.C. U. which with was the same as Section R. S. U. 1933. The amend provision may ment deletes from the act “that an action the. years up be maintained a defense set within four from respect the effective date of act with real prior years sold to said effective date.” The full four had expired after this deed was issued before the 1943 enact So, ment or the 1947 amendment thereto. if this case is original covered the amendment but not enactment, attempt then there was an to bar this action upon the date allowing effective of the amendment without bring time thereafter within which to an action. The Legislature may claim bar a within a reasonable time with in the effective date aof statute enacted for purpose, constitutionally but bar such claim without allow ing elapse during some time to may bring claimant an action thereon after the effective date of the statute. Waterson, See v. Sohn Wall. 84 U. S. 21 L. Ed. 737; City Thoeni Dubuque, v. 115 Iowa 88 N. W. 967; Holding Western Company v. Northwestern Land & Co., Loan 557; Mont. 120 P. 2d Wallace v. McEch
465 So, amend either this ron, N. 663. Y. 68 E. 176 N. running of the commence the be ment must construed the enact years period at the time of of limitations four to be ment or be held unconstitutional. statutes, contrary
By terms, statute, to most such this its brought or inter actions, counterclaims, or defenses bars tax So con posed overturn a title. either to sustain or a strued, that of purpose of the would not be statute but actions is to settle stale claims limitation to adjudicating the title to bar the courts from would be to such would property. construed a statute such So unconstitutional, probably it is bе inconceivable litigation legislature prevent power a has courts. claims in the has construed a statute Wisconsin respect barring somewhat similar this one an recovery by property action for sold a tax at sale purchaser original either the at such sale or owner, possession; whichever one was not and in debtor unoccupied property, purchaser cases of vacant good was tax title which on its face was held to have con possession property.1 structive such the tax title Where void, face, its was an action of except would barred be statute where he possession property. Egerton Bird, was in actual of the v. 473; Am. Cleveland, 70 Dec. Knox v. Wis. 13 Wis. 245; Sprecker 432; Wakeley, Kricke, v. 11 Wis. Hill v. 442; Dorman, 388; Falkner v. Wis. 7 Wis. McMillan v. Wehle, 55 Wis. 13 N. 694.W. 1943, providing person establishing U. C. Section A. that “the 104 — legal presumed possessed title to the shall have been thereof
n within the time required by law; occupation property by and the person shall be have other deemed to been under subordination title, legal appears unless it has been held and possessed adversely legal years to such title for seven before the com action,” might change presumption possession mencement of the our state. *6 original it ex 1943 statute is also unusual
This pressly defenses as well as actions and counterclaims. bars Usually that a a defense it is held statute which bars against by the holder of the tax to re an action property who retained cover from the owner has possession actual thereof is unconstitutional. See A., 532, Buty Goldfinch, 1057, L. R. v. 74 133 P. 46 Wash. 1065, 1066, 1915A, S., page N. also note at Ann. Cas. and note at 608. problem keep our we must in mind
To understand prescribed by procedure statutes for sales. Under 10—32, 1943, January 10th, of section U. C. A. 80— subject year delinquent all real estate to a lien each for county pay pre- taxes are deemed sold to the tax at such liminary changes tax sale. a few minor With details this 10—32, 1933, is the same as section R. U. S. and a 80— procedure provided by 6023, similar is for sections 1917, pursuant L.O. U. to which this sale was conducted Thereafter, any sale certificate issued in 1923. county preliminary real estate sold to the under a sale for delinquent may, 10—59, taxes under sections U. A.C. 80— 6024, 1943 and R. S. U. 1933 and Section C. L. U. by any person having redeemed an interest therein while property by county such is held preliminary such prior April following sale lapse 1st next of four years preliminary from the date of the sale. There are by three different kinds of county may sales which the property the title to transfer prelimi- sоld to it under the nary sale for which taxes is not redeemed within the time specified therefor other than suit; (1) by foreclosure sale; private (2) public sale; (3) by striking it off county (6), under subdivision 10—68, Section 80— U. C. A. 1943.
(1) Under section U. C. A. and R. S. U. 1933 and Section C. L. U. amended 1919, page 339, Laws of Utah any at time after redemp- expiration of the before the preliminary sale and required and as- to sell county treasurer is period tion is county sign real estate of the the interest delinquent preliminary tax sale subject to such against mortgage such holding or lien person recorded delinquent of the property upon payment of the amount his Thereupon, interest, penalties thereon. taxes, and costs assignment an entitled to receive is such county county’s auditor. from the interest in such redemption In case the redeemed within assign- assignee may present period, such thereafter county required to out a ment to the auditor who is make *7 county. conveying property him Here deed from the conveying property county the to the ex- there is no deed cept preliminary of the but the deed con- the record sale veys directly county property the from the to the recorded assignee. lien holder
(2) (2), (4) (5), (3), Under 80—10—68 section and 1943, 10—68, 6056, A. R. U. C. U. 1933 and S. Section 80— 1917, county required L.C. U. is to advertise for sale public property previously and at sale all real sell sold to county preliminary at tax sale and not redeemed or private 10—36, at under sold sale section for which an 80— made, upon acceptable period bid and is which the of re- demption expired. again has Here since the 1939 amend- directly county pur- ment the deed runs from the to the prior chaser but to thаt amendment under section 80—10— county R. U. property S. auditor deeded all the subject May county was to the sale to the after redemption period expired prior May sale, and to the and County thereafter might Board of Commissioners sell public private the same at time at sale.
(3) Then, (6), section 80—10—68 U. A.C. property after all the real previously which has been sold county preliminary to the at tax sale and not redeemed or private sold at sale under upon Section 80—10—36 and redemption period expired which the has offered has been May sale, property for sale at the all of such for which no received, acceptable bid is then and is off sold struck county property and a record made thereof. This thereafter be sold the Board of Commissioners at public many respects рrivate time at sale. This sale is in county provided similar to the sale to the for under section 1933, except R. S. U. that sale made May prior upon expiration redemption sale period, any specified at separate occasion but a county auditor’s deed parcel is made to the for each of land property and it covers all the which under section 80—10— (2), (3), (4) (5) is offered sale and sold at May sale to a bidder as well as that which is struck off county and sold to the at that sale.
Section 104—2—5.10 as enacted in an bars recovery action property “for the of real struck off and county provided by sold (6), section 80—10—68 Utah Code Annotated 1943”. It does not bar an action for recovery of real which is sold to a recorded mortgage private lien holder at sale under section 80— paragraph 10—36 as (1) described in above nor for the recovery of real sold to a bidder under section (2), (3), (4) (5) 80—10—68 May at the sale as de- *8 paragraph (2) scribed in only above. It prop- covers erty struck off county and sold to the under the last of these three kinds of sales.
But, dealing with defenses it bars a defense or counter- claim involving
“to action the recovery property, the defense of title to property, sold at such sale, public or private sale.” language enlarges This the bar so as to include defenses and recovery counterclaims actions for the prop- of real erty public private sold at para- sales described in graphs (1) (2) above as recovery well as for the county described as to the and sold off property struck only a defense it bars (3) And above. paragraph recovery real involving an action counterclaim defense bars the also so sold but has been which property property. of title to of sec- language 1943 enactment of the
By terms the its recovery of “action for the 2—5.10, an bars tion 104— county, provided as off and sold property struck real 1943”. (6), Annotated Code Utah section 80—10—68 was, with above, prior this pointed As out county by auditor’s deed conveyed to the property, other 10—66, 1933, was which R. S. U. section under 80— May Thereafter, sale case. procedure followed in this 10—68, was R. U.S. provided under Section for 80— received bid was which a suitable held and general provisions of section under to such bidder was sold 10—68, no subdivision but there was R. U. S. 80— authorizing conveyance prop- (6) of that section quite departure county. procedure erty was This (6), U. provided for section 80—10—68 from that legislature intention- It unusual that the C. A. 1943. seems involving barring only ally actions enacted a statute section 80—10 made since the amendment under sales (6), A. and not cover tax sales made under —68 U. C. section R. U. where the claim would S. history much more stale. But the of the have to be bill later, amendments, after enacted into was legislature deliberately statute indicates that the chose that limitation, originally bill narrow for the as introduced was much broader its bar actions than it was when en- acted. composite
Below is a form of bill as introduced finally original composite as enacted. in the form As ordinary print and amended acts the words and those running through originally with line them are the bill *9 ordinary print introduced and words in and those which act are italicized constitute the as it was enacted. private maintained tained, covery or “No рublic (6) Utah action unless sals struck or property, private sale, for Code Annotated no same be off defense or the recovery and sold or defense or brought of counter-claim to to possession thereof, real of or set or for title to county, property up property, as within any Sfld provided by possession shall be set action at t',ve sold at tax sale or involving four thereof section 80 —10— such up years public or main- shall be the re- from sale, or however, date which the sale was held. that an Provided, action may be up brought set within maintained if within t'.vo defense years four from the effective act with real respect date this to sold property prior to said effective date.” foregoing From the it is evident as bill intro- duced is much broader in its bar to actions than it was original enacted, coverage parts as and that was only to defenses switched bar and counterclaims. Such changes require study would considerable and indicate that they deliberately were made must and we conclude that legislature intended to exclude from limitations of section, actions, all defenses and counterclaims for the recovery property except specified expressly of real those specifies The in the statute. statute actions “for the recovery county, of real struck off sold provided (6), section 80—10—68 Utah Code Anno- any tated 1943” and defenses counterclaims “to action involving recovery property, or the defense property, sale, public at private sale, sold such tax possession provisions or for thereof.” This does bar a to an recovery defense actiоn such as this for the of real county by transferred to the auditor’s deed under section R. S. U. for no reference made a transaction. Constitution, provides Our State Article section 24 general that “all laws of a nature shall have some uniform operation.” And 1 of the Section Fourteenth Amendment the federal- “deny constitution forbids state to person jurisdiction equal protection within its *10 Mason, 94 v. provisions in State Under these the laws.” 507, 920, page and 501, page 2d at 923 at and 78 P. Utah WOLFE, through said: Mr. we 117 R. 330 Justice A. L. Leg- legislative discriminatory. in The act is one sense course, every “Of subject legislate mat- as all or all cannot one persons islature [in act[ group rela- some human and as to ters. It is inclusive as to some class the remainder. For or functions and exclusive as to transactions, tionships, the discrimination must be unreasonable to be unconstitutional reason, A its arbitrary classification is never unreasonable arbitary. long differ- as is some basis the inclusion or exclusion features so there subject those compared entiation between classes or matters included a reasonable from its the differentiation bears operation, provided excluded to be the act.” accomplished relation to the purposes effect, City, 113 To v. Salt Lake the same see Gronlund Gibson, 284, 464; 105 194 P. 2d Broadbent v. Utah Utah 523, 53, 939; Walker, 2d 100 Utah 116 P. 140 P. 2d State v. 482, 766; Sopher, 318, R. A. 71 P. 60 L. v. 25 Utah State 468, Rep. 845. Am. St. 95
Here, whatever for distinction made. there is no basis surrounding county to the under the sale The conditions 1943, (6), A. 80—10—68 U. C. since section objects purposes there 1939 and the amendment exactly 80—10— the same as those section are 66, 1933, The fac- prior that amendment. R. U. S. slight change proced- whatever is a tuаl difference made former the fact under the ure and sale made one must have been before the statute claim present and therefore deals with a which is statute justify Certainly more stale. fact would barring barring distinction the newer claims while not ones. therefore conclude that this differen- older We these of sales no rea- tiation between two classes bears accomplished by purposes sonable relation to to be discrimination, against per- therefore that the act and hold plaintiffs purchased sons who as here tax titles transferred county prior under the statute in effect to the 1939 arbitrary and amendment unreasonable therefore is unconstitutional.
472
Again we are confronted with the hard situation result
ing
Bolognese Anderson,
from our
decisions
97
v.
275;
Wright,
Utah
90 P. 2d
Fisher v.
101 Utah
703;
469;
P.
Ellison,
123
2d
Anson
104
v.
Utah
653;
2d
P.
referred
Mr. Justice
WOLFE Merсur
Coalition Min. Co.
v. Cannon.
Utah
184 P.
2d
Crystal
Robbins,
Lime & Cement Co. v.
116 Utah
county
I court, and not for the that the cases which create such a situation should be allowing overruled to the purchaser extent of title delinquent to recover from the tax debtor whenever it appears put validity that he has issue the of such tax This, regard- and the court it holds that is invalid. less not, of whether he asks for affirmative relief or though recognize holding might I contrary that such weight authority. important it For is more bring we practical, just have rules consistent and concepts technical ancient results than we sustain way, logical. though they are, in a easily legislation very correct situation
The could against creating in the tax title a lien delinquent thereby he released from valid title where he failed to obtain a tax lien all cases property. to such judgment reversed and remanded to trial
The is opin- proceedings in accordance with this court for further Appellants their costs. ion. recover j., McDonough, concurs.
PRATT, J., in the result. C. concurs WOLFE, (concurring). Justice LATIMER, believe, that section
I Mr. Justice as does Utah, 2—5.10, Chapter as amend- Laws of inoperative be- Utah is Chapter ed Laws of inconsistent, indefinite, uncertain, mud- cause the act intelligible not lend itself to dled and confused and does interpretation within the of construc- or workable bounds *12 go beyond of an act of the tion. cannot construction We Legislature. of a new act. cannot be the architects We
I the view of Mr. Justice WADE am also inclined to unconstitutional in that there the act as amended is barring actions concеrned for no basis as far as is is differentiating tax sales made on the one hand between (6), A. 80—10—68 U. C. of Section under conditions 1943, under hand those made Section and on other 10—36, 10—68, under Section R. U. 1933 and S. 80— 80— predecessor under statutes to these A. U. C. involving prop- if real sections. It would seem that actions erty county 80—10—68 struck off to the under Section years, (6) for the re- after four actions are to be barred covery procedure possession of real estate where or
474 conveyance county prior September involved a to the to provisions auditor’s deed under the of 80 Section 1933, should, appear —10—66 R. U. for what would S. exactly reasons, be the same be barred. any purpose occur
Nor does there to me accom- be differentiating plished the act on the be- one hand brought tween when actions invоlve instances county property off and to the Sec- was struck sold hand, (6), tion 80—10—68 U. C. A. and on the other 1943 procedure defenses or counterclaims in actions where the holding mortgage person involved a sale to lien predeces- under Section U. C. A. and its 80— compilation sor sections in or 1933 revision' procedure or defenses counterclaims actions where the provisions involved a made under sale 80— Section 68(2), (3), (5), (4), predeces- U. C. A. 1943 and its compilation sor statutes in and 1933 revision. may purpose There be some in this differentiation which just I do not as Mr. see Justice WADE also unable to appears see. It to me that purchaser sold to a provisions of a tax title under the Section 80 either —10—36, predecessor A. provisions U. C. 1943 or its or (2), (4), (3), (5), under Section 80—10—68 U. C. A. predecessor provisions, 1943 and its sold to the whether purchaser county direct from the conveyed or first County county Auditor then from county provi- sold whether under the (6), sions Section 80—10—68 C. A. U. all in are bringers the same boat as far as the for the actions recovery possession and as far as defenses defending up by litigants and counterclaims set are con- cerned. legal posi- Counterclaimants be same bringers tion except they of actions wait up If, therefore, sued to set their actions. certain actions recovery possession years are not barred four be- *13 they acquired cause were types pro- under certain of tax may ex- involve cedure, why should counterclaims the actly barred because be the same situations slightly provisions of different acquired the was statutes ? 2—5.10, Chapter 19, all the
But at events Section 104— by Chapter amended Laws Utah as Laws of by Mr. LATIMER so con- Justice Utah is stated intelligent fusing in- and workable and so elusive consequence, I inoperative. In con- terpretation as to be and Mr. Mr. Justice with what said WADE cur both, opinions the LATIMER and on the basis of Justice plaintiff prevail in this case. cannot the is, being what it defendant Shef- The result in this case plaintiffs will fail defenses and the field is let to his quiet are themselves. Thus we their action to title in brought by purchaser quiet the title confronted in a suit to purchaser the where said of a tax title with situation money tax paid debtor out which has benefited has owner. brings quiet the action to the tax debtor owner
Where brings difficulty. title, usually he there will be no Where title, quieting action, judgment and thus he asks for may granted repaying judgment condition of his money purchasers tax paid out of the title here, But owner. even debtor benefit forego may his decree that he would rather owner decide money purchaser pay and in such a case the than obtaining helpless it came to when the tax title would be recoupment. called on to defend
But tax debtor owner is where the brought quiet an action to title, assume the situation is still worse. The owner attitude, purely defensive refuse to ask for affirmative right plead plaintiff have has no
relief quieted title, him the title because he does not have *14 by uncovering proof plaintiff’s in the demolish title sub- procedure in the re- stantial infirmities tax which would county that the never title from debtor veal obtained the tax consequently convey owner and could not title to the purchaser. tax title early
Perhaps protected in our have tax cases we degree by public policy, debtor owner to a not warranted аlthough by this court have been influenced the stat- seemingly required rigid utes which procedure certain tax good county. to effectuate a tax public policy expressed by But also a there was those by sections of the tax laws which with the dealt sale county gotten of which tax default had off county, the tax rolls and into the hands of the to the effect encouraged parties purchase such county might again from the in order it reside in yield private public hands and thus revenue for the main- government. tenance of sense, public policies
In a two these are at war. The application juris pro- the rule strictissimi to tax protect owner; cedure fact, does the tax it debtor only protects but him allows him default taxes his year year, refraining making after therefore from his required government contribution statе and local know- ing probabilities heavily lie in favor of some sharpshooter attorney being shrewd versed on tax law invalidity able to acquired by uncover the of a title county. case, indeed, from the It the rare where procedure a search will not disclose some- along where the line one or more infirmities of commis- procedure. sion omission in the every And almost type infirmity of such infirmity has been held to be an informality the level transcends of an in an act re- lating to taxes, assessment or collection of see 80— Sec. lying U. C. A. or if procedure in a field of tax collections, nature as outside of assessment subject mat- country’s The whole title. to invalidate cycle periodic depres- with our ter is not unconnected courts, legislature at which time both sions poverty manner in which the wholesale influеnced were suf- to meet taxes property owners unable stricken legisla- delinquencies, fering consequences of from the heavily the dis- rescue of toward and decision leaned tion *15 alone because property owners. Nor was it tressed the realiza- Underneath was political considerations. country directly the the welfare of that in America tion home-owning large as groups of citizens to a base of tied proletariat its distinquished usual from a landless holdings comparative concomitant, the few. land swollen for a de- it was made difficult the But even fact faulting even over taxpayer to his to lose title through possession (because years, adverse the unless legis- by the as was of limitations such there was no statute might case), attempted in this and considered lature long discouraged therе was purchasers so tax title have quiet gain good by an action to title opportunity to an money the repayment of all title or in lieu thereof obtain property, at in the purchasers had invested such had been tax debtor owner which the to the extent to least generous together of interest. And benefited, rate with But possible. past, I has been think this in the remote only require to a sale were amended the statutes when permit them county in order to lien holders or to to general public preventing the protect liens—thus their to (not, however, delinquent purchasing at tax sales from only way county) non lien holder from the tax titles —the delinquent property purchase was to could invest county. incentive for And the from the tax titles good might acquire eventually title doing he this was by succeeding in a suit to against owner the tаx debtor that, recoup or, himself if he failed in quiet in himself title money might paid out with interest. But latter depend on compelled whether debtor owner would position quiet put to himself title action whereby by pay money he the court could be made to paid county purchaser the tax title at least (the owner) the extent he tax debtor benefited it. As stated, brought before the tax where debtor owner quiet title, suit to the court Hoover, under Burton v. Utah difficulty P. 2d would have had no requiring pay him purchaser (if the tax title the latter defendant, usually was) money were made a which he paid by county, said latter at least to the extent which the tax debtor payment owner benefited because such tax paid debtor owner’s prop- taxes had been and his erty thus freed from lien for them. difficulty
The when arose the tax title was plaintiff quiet Here, noted, in the suit title. as before (defendant) deny tax debtor owner could the tax title purchaser’s (plaintiff’s) allegation he, the tax title purchaser, title, allegation had admit the tax *16 purchaser he, owner, that the tax debtor claimed an in- deny terest, that the said interest was inferior to that of purchaser’s interest, the title that assert it was on the other superior (the purchaser’s) hand tax to his title interest and pleadings stop as to there. proof,
As up all he had to do was to the in- show firmity purchaser by revealing in the title the tax title infirmity procedure the in stop the there as was court, theory in done this case. The the that an action quiet try strength title was more than an action to the title, plaintiff’s adjudicate but was an action to the parties (which, title all course, to the action is) compel the statute it (de- сould the tax owner debtor considering) in fendant the we are plead case the nature his, defendant’s, adjudicate and extent of the title and the rights respective parties. and claims of both The court the defendant pleading might go the as to strike so far nature and extent plead the to amend to if he was ordered the court to do so title and if he refused of his claim -or pur- (the title give judgment plaintiff the for could quiet considering) title in the case we are chaser way, plain- against In the plaintiff the defendant. the get owner title and was a decree that he had tiff would defendant, would lose against defendant and the as the plaintiff ownership. the But the chances are his litigant a defend- have as a not be so fortunate as to would amending required, oblige by as not ant who would barely complying amend, stop would there after if he did go not fur- order to amend. He would with the court’s quieted him. Then he would title be ther and ask title, infirmity court, plaintiff’s in the come into show away. walk demolish it and stranger course, theory cannot on the that a mere
Of plaintiff, but must at least show attack the title might himself, compelled some interest the defendant strength he was title and reveal to show of his case, if In such the court found the tax debtor owner. was, quiet in turn on condition that he it would the title purchaser) pay plaintiff (the that he tax title money that the defendant was out to the extent latter finding pay, if benefited. But the defendant did repose office but there would in the records of the clerk’s plaintiff not obtain a decree would be no decree. The could really the was because it was shown that the defendant holder; recoupment neither could obtain he money part paid he for the invalid tax title or such respect which pay defendant should because the taxes in effect had tax title he had defaulted discharged. paid, been at least lien for taxes *17 He in mind. Mr. Justice has these difficulties WADE suggests Legislature provide could given a lien the tax debtor owner’s on lien, paid Such a the taxes for his benefit. for really limitation,
coupled proper would with a statute of Legislature accomplish appeared to what want do by confusedly peculiarly its worded acts considered limitations, long-ago case. this such statute of Without buyers of tax titles holders of ancient tax cer- and/or might large tificates come life with a claim accumu- for statutory generous provided interest lated at the rate buyers legal the tax laws for of tax certificates оr at the rate, but event of such size the automatic accumulation time as to saddle the tax debtor owner’s property, perhaps passed now from him into more inno- large lien, cent with for hands amount.
I problem think we lap must throw this whole legislature, together suggestions with our and admo- nitions, try again eye and ask them but with an on the problem. Perhaps procedure total the whole tax sale revamped should be in toto. There have been amend- parts made procedure past, ments in the but they without consideration as to how affect the whole parts other thereof. close,
But before I I should call attention that this court acknowledge responsibility have to some myself. muddled and in situations stricture I include Taxpayers prejudiced many are not omissions Certainly, misfeasances of officials. it is a rаre taxpayer prejudiced by who is the failure of either assessor or the respective auditor to affix their oaths required by certificates as Sections 80—7—9 and 80—5— Staley A. al., U. C. 1943. See Telonis v. et 104 Utah rehearing 106 P. 2d 104 Utah 144 P. 2d fact, taxpayer 513. In it is rare that a even knows of these requirements. who, scouting attorney through It infirmities, omissions, the tax record for discovers these years most time afterward. *18 auditor,
I cite the omission of this certificate of the the omission of which was held in the Telonis’ case to be fatal, simply example as an compare and the certificate oath must and which be attached the auditor under Sec. required by 80—7—9 with Sec. 80—5—30 penalty stoppage salary upon A assessor. of of is visited required the assessor for failure to attach the affidavit expressly provides that Sec. but the section affidavit, “a failure make to or or subscribe such affidavit, validity not in will manner affect of Yet, required the assessment.” from the the two duties officers, duty honestly, correctly it seem would to diligently according and assess to more or law would be just taxpayer duty as vital to as the of the auditor to honestly correctly record transmit alterations equalization. roll assessment authorized the board of theory Our decisions have been based on the agents very powers officials are with limited and unless powers strictly departure these are followed there is a agency from the which the offi- invalidates acts of required vary cials. But acts tax officials nature. misdoings may very The or omissions cases some prejudicial taxpayer. Others sink to the level of duties, office administrative such as entries in Be- books. types, duties, fully tween these thеre are the failure or discharge correctly may may prejudicial not be taxpayer. laying Acts fundamental of an ad valorem are: (1) Correct, assessments; conscientious and fair assessments; (2) Opportunities inequities to correct (3) levy, largely mathematical; The which is (4) Opportunities to redeem or reclaim the at along points line; one more
(5) Adequate meetings assessment, notification of due, boards, levy date
equalization amount of tax tax- May delinquency, when the sales other dates according go may payer property; rescue his all them taxpayer statutory have to time table of which the take notice. *19 pretend complete
I that is a list of do the the above structure, procedure operations in the but it salient argument. the suffices for required compliance matters, whilst in these
Were strict lаpse, the was a other matters where there claimed prejudice taxpayer might required an to show actual dereliction, might sensible, work- to it due the result sufficiently system. This, protective with some able and pur- “buyer principle applied to relaxation beware” titles, sufficiently protect chase of would seem to taxpayer’s time interest and at same serve the interest obtaining public taxpayer from each the fulfill- suffering duty pay pain ment of his to another taxes urgency place protect to take over in his and thus public revenues. results). (concurring in
LATIMER, Justice I the results. concur in give possible to the words used in Section
It is not ordi- —2—5.10, Chapter Utah their Laws of legislative meaning nary with arrive at a intent suggested every degree certainty. Almost reasonable brings rearrangement phrases about absurd of wоrds or irreconcilable conflicts with other statu- results and creates tory purpose It would serve no useful to set enactments. why Legislature could not have all the reasons out my purposes It for result. is sufficient intended that every say con- that when tested known rule of even struction, indefinite, uncertain, inconsistent, act is Regardless ap- confused. muddled and which rule is plied, property rights protected which should be are either destroyed, impaired good barred or without reason. While Legislature only I prescribe believe the intended goes short statute of beyond limitation the enactment far prevents certain circumstances the courts considering questions affecting from property. title to Legislature It can be assumed that the did not intend deny authority adjudicate to courts rights by barring both causes of defenses, actions and but what the section attempt states and to construe it to escape only brings that result about other absurdities. recognize
I duty requires that our if, applica- accepted construction, tions of known or rules of we can legislative determine any degree intent with of cer- tainty, My difficulty we should do so. in this case is that stay when I give within the framework of the act and ordinary words their acceptable meaning uncertainty, *20 inconsistency vagueness and exist. precision
In enactment of a statute reasonable is required. Certainty need not be absolute and courts legislative they not invalidate because are in- should acts accurately expressions drawn or because the used are awkward, wanting clumsy However, precision. if vagueness uncertainty removed, and cannot be or if re- legislative moved, unascertainable, intent is still then inoperative. the act should be declared void and Juris., general Paragraph 472, Statutes, In 50 Am. prefer I rule which to follow is stated as “Indefi- follows: Uncertainty. and niteness the enactment of statutes —In required. Indeed, prime is precision reasonable one requisites legislative certainty, statute is enact- may inoperative ments be declared to be courts uncertainty meaning power void for in the thereof. This incomplete, be exercised where the statute so or so conflicting, irreconcilably vague indefinite, so unable, by the court is the statute cannot be executed and construction, accepted application of known and rules of Legislature intended, with rea- to determine what the ** *” degree certainty, sonable cured without The infirmities section cannot being legislative completely func- its revised this is a I, therefore, conclude the is unenforceable. tion. act v. HILL
MARES 811.) (222 P. 2d No. 7353. Decided October 1950. Rehearing 10, 1950; denied denied Certiorari November Supreme May U. Court 1951. S.