Shoop v. Callan

GOODELL, J. Appellants sued to quiet title to several lots in Redwood City and to annul a deed under which respondents Callan claim title to the same property. The decree was in favor of said respondents on their cross-complaint. A new trial was denied and this appeal was taken.

The deed under which respondents Callan claim the property was executed and recorded later than the appellants’ deed to the same property. Both deeds arise out of tax proceedings, the property having been sold to both the state and the city for taxes which had been delinquent for upwards of six years prior to 1943.

Article 2, chapter 8, part 6, division 1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code establishes the method whereby property [787]subject to taxation by two or more taxing agencies is restored to the assessment rolls, by setting up the procedure for its sale to private purchasers and for the ratable distribution of the proceeds between the taxing agencies. Sections 3791, 3791.5, 3792 and 3793, Revenue and Taxation Code provide for an agreement between such agencies to effectuate such purposes.

Section 3793.5 provides: “. . . If provisions for the pro rata division of the proceeds of a sale of the property by the taxing agency are included in an agreement under this chapter, the agreement shall require the taxing agency to sell the property to a private purchaser within two years after the execution of the deed to the taxing agency, which period may be extended . . . for a reasonable . . . time by the board of supervisors ...” (Emphasis added.)

Section 3807.5 provides that if a prorating agreement is made “and the property is not sold by the taxing agency within two years after the execution of the deed” or the extended time “the taxing agency shall execute a deed to the State reconveying to the State all the right, title and interest of the State in the property ...” (Emphasis added.)

In an attempt to follow the provisions of article 2, an agreement was entered into on March 16, 1943, between the county of San Mateo and the city of Redwood City embracing the property here involved and other property. It recited that these properties had been deeded to both the state and the city, and it provided for cooperation in their sale by the state (acting through the county) to the city, so that they “may be restored to the tax and assessment rolls of both the County and the City.” It fixed for each parcel a minimum price for resale by the city, such price for the property in question being $800. It provided that when sales were made by the city the proceeds, after certain deductions, would be prorated between the county and the city.