Hubbard v. Delta Co.
Before: Vallée
VALLÉE, J. Defendants Salisbury appeal from an adverse judgment in an action to quiet title.
On June 30, 1932, the real property involved was sold to the state for nonpayment of taxes levied for the fiscal year 1931-2. On July 1, 1937, the property was deeded to the state. On January 24, 1949, the state sold and deeded the property to plaintiffs. (Rev. & Tax. Code, div. I, pt. 6, ch. 7.)
At the conclusion of plaintiffs’ case defendants offered to prove that: the property was acquired by a sister of defendant Frank M. Salisbury in 1940; he paid the consideration therefor; he acquired the property July 7, 1947; in January of 1947 he applied for and was given permission to place the property on a partial payment plan of redemption under section 4217 of the Revenue and Taxation Code; on January 25, 1947, he paid $2,630.12, which represented the 1946 taxes, a penalty, and 20 per cent of the delinquent taxes; such payment paid the taxes to April 20, 1948; he made no further payment of taxes on the property after January 25, 1947.
Plaintiffs’ objection to the offer of proof was sustained.
Defendants’ assignment of error is that the Legislature in amending section 4217 of the Revenue and Taxation Code unconstitutionally discriminated against defendants as persons within a class of taxpayers whose land had been deeded to the state for delinquent taxes.
Prior to September 19, 1947, section 4217 read: “Any person entitled to redeem real estate from tax sale may elect to pay delinquent taxes in installments under this article at any time before the right of redemption is terminated, except that if payment of delinquent taxes in installments is started under this article and the amount required to be paid in any fiscal year is not paid as required by this article, payments may not again be started under this article during the fiscal year in which such default occurs.” In 1947 the clause “payments may not again be started under this article during the fiscal year in which such default occurs” was amended to read, “payments may not again be started under this article until July 1st of the second succeeding fiscal year after that [174]in which such default occurs.” (Stats. 1947, ch. 851, § 9.)
The argument seems to be that the 1947 amendment unconstitutionally discriminates against defendants and taxpayers in their class in favor of taxpayers who had not sought the protection of the installment payment plan provided by sections 4216-4226 (Art. 2, div. I, pt. 7, ch. 3) of the Revenue and Taxation Code.
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)