Roma v. Elbert, Ltd.

California Court of Appeal Feb 28, 1946 No. Civ. 15194Published

Before: Wilson

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the judgment quieting title in the defendant but modified it to require the defendant to reimburse the plaintiffs for taxes paid, as the defendant sought affirmative equitable relief against the plaintiffs' tax deed.

Issues

Whether a quitclaim deed from a dissolved corporation is valid without proof of the grantor's title.
Whether a tax deed is conclusive evidence of the state's title to the property.
Whether a property owner seeking to quiet title against a tax deed must reimburse the tax purchaser for taxes paid.

Disposition. Modified and affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The state cannot convey title that it does not possess. A deed to the state is a jurisdictional prerequisite to its right to execute a deed to a purchaser at a tax sale.”

“Where equitable relief is sought by a property owner against a purchaser at a tax sale the party seeking relief must do equity, and the repayment of the amount of the taxes paid by the purchaser at the tax sale does no more than satisfy the equitable requirement.”

WILSON, J.

Plaintiffs, claiming title through a quitclaim deed from the trustees of a dissolved corporation and a tax deed from the State of California, brought this action to quiet title to real property. This appeal is from a judgment quieting defendant’s title against the claims of plaintiffs.

The effect of the quitclaim deed.

There was no evidence that title to the property, or any interest therein, was vested in the corporation or in its trustees. Over the objection of respondent to the introduction of the quitclaim deed on that ground the court admitted it in evidence dependent on the establishment of the grantor’s title. Not only was this evidence not supplied but it was shown that such interest, if any, as may have been vested in the corporation, or its trustees, had been acquired by respondent through a commissioner’s deed issued as the result of the foreclosure of a street improvement bond prior to the execution of the quitclaim deed.

The effect of the tax deed.

The court sustained the objection of respondent to the admission in evidence of the tax deed from the state on the ground that the proper foundation had not been laid in that it had not been shown that the state had acquired title to the property. The court was correct in its ruling.

(Swann

Carson,

56 Cal.App.2d 502 [132 P.2d 863] and cases there cited.)

Section 3711 of the Revenue and Taxation Code and the sections of the Political Code from which it is derived, relied on by appellants, provide that the deed is “conclusive evidence of the regularity of all proceedings from the assessment of the assessor to the execution of the deed, both inclusive. ’ ’ That section refers only to the regularity of the taxing procedure and does not purport to declare that the deed received by a purchaser from the state is evidence that the property had previously been deeded to the state. The Legislature cannot make a tax deed conclusive evidence of matters that are essential to the exercise of the taxing power, that is, as to the steps that are jurisdictional in their nature.

(Ramish

Roma v. Elbert, Ltd.

AI Brief

WILSON, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief