Connors v. Jerome
Before: Dooling
DOOLING, J.
The plaintiffs and respondents purchased a parcel of tax-deeded property from the State of California on November 27, 1941. They thereafter brought this action to quiet their title to the property. The State of California
[331]
asserted a lien in the sum of $107.99 against the property for delinquent franchise taxes incurred by the Seske Investment Company in 1932 and 1933, at which time that corporation owned the property in question. Judgment went for plaintiffs and the State of California appeals.
The appellant asserts its lien under section 29 of the Bank and Corporation Franchise Tax Act (Stats. 1929, p. 31 as amended by Stats. 1933, p. 703; Deering’s Gen. Laws, 1933 Supp., Act 8488) :
“Every tax herein provided for has the effect of a judgment against the taxpayer, and every lien has the effect of an execution duly levied against all property of the delinquent, and the judgment is not satisfied nor the lien removed until the tax and the penalty are paid, or the property sold for the payment thereof. ...”
Respondents on the other hand rely on section 3712 of the Revenue and Taxation Code as it read at the time the property was deeded to them by the state (Stats. 1941, p. 2464):
“The deed conveys title.to the purchaser free of all encumbrances of any kind existing before the sale, except:
“(a) Any lien for installments of assessments, which installments will become due after the time of the sale;
“(b) The lien for taxes or assessments or other rights of any taxing agency which does not consent to the sale under this chapter;
“(c) Liens for special assessments levied upon the property conveyed which were, at the time of the sale under this chapter, not included in the amount necessary to redeem the property from the sale to the State, and, where a taxing agency which collects its own taxes has consented to the sale under this chapter, not included in the amount required to redeem from sale to such taxing agency;
“(d) Easements constituting servitudes upon or burdens to the property; water rights, the record title to which is held separately from the title to the property; and restrictions of record.”
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)