Smith v. Golden State Syndicate

California Court of Appeal Sep 23, 1919 No. Civ. No. 3028.Published

Before: Langdon

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that Section 3898 of the Political Code, requiring the repayment of taxes to a purchaser of a void tax deed, applies to tax deeds issued prior to the statute's enactment and that the trial court properly conditioned the judgment on such repayment.

Issues

Whether Section 3898 of the Political Code applies to tax deeds issued before the statute's 1913 amendment.
Whether a court may require the repayment of taxes to a tax deed purchaser even if the purchaser did not specifically plead for a refund.
Whether findings supported by evidence are valid on appeal when the record consists only of the judgment-roll.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We are of the opinion that this statute merely affects the remedy of the purchaser of a tax title and that it was intended to apply to all cases after its passage in which the invalidity of a tax title was judicially determined.”

“Section 3898 of the Political Code provides positively that no decree shall be made until this relief is granted to the purchaser of a tax title.”

“On appeal on the judgment-roll alone, it will be assumed in support of the judgment that all objections to evidence sustaining the findings were waived.”

Synopsis

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

LANGDON, P. J.

This is an action to quiet title to certain real property in the city of Los Angeles. E. C. Laux, the respondent, filed a complaint in intervention, claiming to be the owner of a portion of the land described in plaintiff's complaint. The action was tried and judgment given upon the complaint in intervention of E. C. Laux and the answer thereto of J. H. Smith. The complaint in intervention was in form a suit to quiet title and alleged that the intervener was the owner in fee of the real property therein described. The answer was a denial of the title of the intervener. The court found that the intervener had no right or title to the said property except that he had purchased a tax deed therefor from the city of Los Angeles, and further found that said tax deed was null and void. Judgment was entered against the intervener and in favor of the appellant, but it was provided therein that said judgment should not take effect until payment by the appellant to said intervener of $561.35, the amount of taxes paid by the intervener upon the property. From the portion of the judgment requiring such payment an appeal is taken.

[348]

[1]

Section 3898 of the Political Code (subdivision 5) provides: “Whenever, in any action at law, it shall be determined by a court that the sale and conveyance provided for in this and the preceding section are void for any reason and that the purchaser from the state may not be finally awarded the property so purchased, no decree of the court shall be given declaring a forfeiture of the property until the former owner, or other party in interest, shall have repaid to the purchaser the full amount of taxes, penalties and costs paid out and expended by him, to be determined by the court, in pursuit of the state’s title to the property so sold.” Appellant contends that this subdivision of section 3898 is inapplicable here, because it was added by amendment in 1913 (Stats. 1913, p. 560) and the tax deed under which the intervener claims is dated March 8, 1912. We are of the opinion that this statute merely affects the remedy of the purchaser of a tax title and that it was intended to apply to all cases after its passage in which the invalidity of a tax title was judicially determined. This seems also to have been the view taken of this section by the court in the case of

Smith v. Golden State Syndicate

AI Brief

Synopsis

LANGDON, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief