Howard v. Judson

California Court of Appeal Jun 10, 1948 No. Civ. 16255Published

Before: Doran

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that minor procedural irregularities in tax proceedings do not invalidate a tax deed where such errors do not violate jurisdictional or constitutional due process requirements and are cured by applicable curative acts.

Issues

Whether alleged procedural defects in tax proceedings rendered the respondent's tax title void.
Whether the appellants met their burden of proof to overcome the respondent's prima facie tax title.
Whether curative acts and ordinances effectively validated the tax proceedings despite minor irregularities.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Modern curative acts, such as that found in Statutes of 1945, page 2176, have rendered innocuous those errors and irregularities which do not violate the jurisdictional and constitutional due process requirements.”

“Clearly, the law does not require that absolute perfection of form which appellants’ brief seems to insist upon.”

DORAN, J.

The respondent herein instituted the present action for the purpose of quieting title to Lots 6 and 7 of Block 27 in the city of Long Beach, acquired by way of two tax deeds issued by the city on August 31, 1945. The appellants are the record owners of these lots, and contest the .validity of respondent’s tax title. On August. 11, 1945, the property in question had been conveyed by the Los Angeles County Tax Collector to the city of Long Beach pursuant to article 2, chapter 8, part 6 of division l.of the Revenue and Taxation Code; upon this deed, however, appellants make no attack. The trial court rendered judgment quieting title in the respondent. Appellants “submit that in view of the existing defects in the tax proceeding the deed to Howard is void and judgment should be for defendants, the record owners. ’ ’

Appellants’ brief, based upon the general proposition that “every detail of the law must be complied with to make the (tax) sale valid,” alleges specific errors as follows: (1) “Published delinquent list August 8,15, 22, 1933, should have been on or before June 10, 1933”; (2) “No sufficient description”; (3) Notice of sale specified “Taxes of 1933-34”

[130]

in place of correctly describing the taxes as of 1932-33 for which the tax deed to the city was issued; (4) “ The Notice of Sale was posted instead of published as required by said Ordinance”; and (5), that the assessment was invalid. Finally, appellants argue that if any part of the, tax proceeding is void, then all is void.

At the trial of the issues herein, respondent introduced in evidence the relevant tax deeds and ordinances, making out a prima facie ease thereby, and as stated by appellant’s counsel, the burden thereafter rested “on the defendant under these records.” The trial court, in finding for the respondent, determined that the burden of defeating the prima facie tax title had not been satisfactorily met. In view of the nature of the procedural defects relied upon by appellants, the curative acts and ordinances presented by respondent, and the general situation as disclosed by the record, no reversible error is apparent.

The case of

Hall

Howard v. Judson

AI Brief

DORAN, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief