Elsam Co. v. Bell
Before: Salsman
SALSMAN, J. Appellant brought this action to quiet title to certain real property. Respondents filed a cross-complaint and asked the same relief. Each party moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted respondents’ motion.
The facts are not in dispute. Respondents have been owners of the real property in question since 1945. In 1952 a Street Improvement Assessment District was created pursuant to the Improvement Act of 1911 for the purpose of constructing curbs and gutters. Bonds were issued against the subject property to pay for the improvements. Assessments were unpaid, and in 1958 an action was commenced to foreclose the lien of the bonds pursuant to Streets and Highways Code section 6610 et seq. A decree of foreclosure, order of sale and appointment of a commissioner to conduct the sale re-[420]suited. In the foreclosure proceedings the date set for bids to be received was February 17, 1960. Notice was given as provided by law and the sale was properly conducted. Appellant’s assignor, Corona Land Company, was the successful bidder at the sale.
On February 23, 1960, the commissioner issued certificates of sale to the Corona Land Company and these certificates were recorded on the same day.
On February 20, 1961, the commissioner issued deeds to the real property to appellant as assignee of Corona Land Company, and these deeds were recorded February 21, 1961.
Thus the critical facts are that sale of the property was made on February 17, 1960; the commissioner’s certificates were issued February 23, 1960, and the commissioner’s deeds were issued February 20, 1961—more than one year after date of sale but less than one year after issuance and recordation of the commissioner’s certificates of sale.
The question presented is whether time for redemption begins to run from the date of sale or from the date of the issuance and recording of the commissioner’s certificates of sale.
We hold that the period of redemption runs from the date of sale rather than from the date upon which the commissioner issued the certificates of sale.
The Improvement Act of 1911 provides two methods of foreclosure in the event that bond assessments are unpaid. The first method is established by Streets and Highways Code sections 6500-6572, and provides for notice and sale by the county treasurer of property against which there exists a bond assessment deficiency. We are not here concerned with that method of foreclosure.
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)