BURKHARTSMEYER BROTHERS v MCCORMIC

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 12355 I N THE SUPRME COURT O THE STATE OF MONTANA F 1973 THE STATE O MONTANA, ex r e 1 BURKHARTSF MEYER BROTHERS, e t a l . , R e l a t o r and Respondent, ELIZAEETH McCORMICK , TREASURER O F HILL COUNTY, MONTANA, Respondent and A p p e l l a n t , ------_------------------*------------------ NORA C. NELSON, Intervenor. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e Twelfth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Bernard W . Thomas, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record: For Appellant : Ronald W. Smith a r g u e d , County A t t o r n e y , Havre, Montana. F o r Respondent : Weber, Bosch, Kuhr, Dugdale and Warner, Havre, Montana. John Warner a r g u e d , Havre, Montana. Hauge, Hauge, Ober, Spangelo and Thompson, Havre, Montana. Theodore K. Thompson a r g u e d , Havre, Montana, Submitted: Decided : Filed : MAY 1 8 1973 A p r i l 24, 1973 MAY'I 8 1973 M r . J u s t i c e Frank I.Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e Court. I n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t o f H i l l County, Hon. Bernard W. Thomas, d i s t r i c t judge, s i t t i n g w i t h o u t a j u r y , r e l a t o r was granted a w r i t o f mandate compelling t h e county t r e a s u r e r t o accept i t s attempted redemption o f delinquent tax sale c e r t i f i c a t e s . The county t r e a s u r e r appeals from t h a t judgment. R e l a t o r i s Burkhartsmeyer Brothers, a ranching c o p a r t n e r s h i p which has occupied t h e l a n d i n q u e s t i o n f o r purposes o f g r a z i n g c a t t l e s i n c e 1952. Appellant i s E l i z a b e t h McCormick, county t r e a s u r e r o f Hi1 1 County, Montana, who i s sued i n her o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t y o n l y . I n t e r v e n o r i s Nora C. Nelson, an assignee o f d e l i n q u e n t s a l e c e r t i f i c a t e s on t h e s u b j e c t land, who a l s o happens t o be H i l l County a u d i t o r . The s u b j e c t o f t h e d e l i n q u e n t t a x s a l e c e r t i f i c a t e s i n v o l v e s a q u a r t e r s e c t i o n o f l a n d i n H i l l County. Hubbard. The owner o f t h e p r o p e r t y i s Ruth R e l a t o r owns t h e l a n d surrounding t h e p r o p e r t y i n d i s p u t e . On October 15, 1958, George H. Campbell purchased from t h e t r e a s u r e r o f H i l l County an assignment o f t a x s a l e c e r t i f i c a t e s covering taxes f o r t h e years 1954, 1956, 1957 and 1958. On March 20, 1963, t h e same George H. Camp- b e l l purchased from t h e H i l l County t r e a s u r e r an assignment o f t a x s a l e c e r t i f i c a t e s c o v e r i n g taxes f o r t h e y e a r 1959 and p a r t o f 1961. Again, on J u l y 6, 1967, he purchased from t h e H i l l County t r e a s u r e r an assignment o f t a x s a l e c e r t i f i c a t e s c o v e r i n g taxes f o r t h e years 1963, 1964, 1965 and 1966. Sub- sequently, on March 24, 1972, t h e aforementioned c e r t i f i c a t e s were purchased from Campbell by r e l a t o r f o r $1,000. On November 30, 1971 , i n t e r v e n o r purchased t a x s a l e c e r t i f i c a t e s c o v e r i n g d e l inquent taxes f o r t h e years 1967, 1968, 1969 and 1970. on t h e same day, i n t e r v e n o r p a i d 1971 taxes on t h e land. Also, On January 27, 1972, i n t e r v e n o r gave n o t i c e t o t h e r e q u i r e d p a r t i e s t h a t she had made such purchases and p a i d such taxes pursuant t o s e c t i o n 84-4151, R.C.M. 1947. N o t i c e was a l s o g i v e n t h a t unless redemption was made p r i o r t o March 29, 1972, i n t e r v e n o r would a p p l y f o r a t a x deed c o v e r i n g t h e p r o p e r t y . A copy o f s a i d n o t i c e was received by r e l a t o r . The d i s t r i c t court found t h a t on March 27, 1972 r e l a t o r tendered t o the county treasurer a sum of money s u f f i c i e n t t o redeem the taxes represented by the assignment of tax s a l e c e r t i f i c a t e s held by intervenor, together with a l l subsequent taxes, i n t e r e s t , penal t i e s and fees required by law. county treasurer refused t o accept such tender. The Later t h i s same day, r e l a t o r applied t o the d i s t r i c t court f o r an a l t e r n a t i v e w r i t of mandate. The writ was granted and served upon the county treasurer on the same day, compelling her t o take a l l steps necessary t o effectuate r e l a t o r ' s attempted redemption or a l t e r n a t i v e l y t o show cause why she had not done so. On t h e following day intervenor tendered her persona1 check t o the county treasurer t o e f f e c t a redemption of r e l a t o r ' s tax s a l e c e r t i f i c a t e s . The check was accepted by the county treasurer. Later the same day the show cause hearing was held. On May 31, 1972, the d i s t r i c t court entered findings of f a c t , conclusions of law and judgment ordering t h a t a peremptory writ of mandate be issued compelling r e l a t o r ' s attempted redemption and f u r t h e r ordered t h a t t h e county treasurer pay r e l a t o r the s m of $250 f o r i t s a t t o r n e y ' s f e e . u The county treasurer appeals from t h i s judgment. Two issues a r e presented upon t h i s appeal : (1 ) Whether r e l a t o r ' s demand f o r a writ o f mandate must f a i l because i t has a p l a i n , adequate and speedy remedy a t law, and ( 2 ) whether r e l a t o r , as the holder of prior tax s a l e c e r t i f i c a t e s has the r i g h t t o redeem subsequent tax s a l e c e r t i f i c a t e s held by intervenor. As a general r u l e , a writ of mandate i s t o be issued only when there i s no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Section 93-9103, R.C.M. 1947; Sullivan v . Treasurer of S i l v e r B w o County, 140 Mont. 609, 370 P.2d 762. Appellant and intervenor contend t h a t i f r e l a t o r had acted i m mediately a f t e r i t received notice of intervenor's appl ication f o r tax deed the following a l t e r n a t i v e remedies were available: (1) a quiet t i t l e action, (2) declaratory judgment, or (3) an injunction pursuant t o sections 93-4201 and 93-4202(3), R.C.M. 1947. Although appellant has l i s t e d several a l t e r n a t i v e remedies i t must be noted t h a t the mere existence of another remedy will n o t bar the issuance of a w r i t of mandate; the a l t e r n a t i v e remedy must be one t h a t i t s e l f enforces the performance of the p a r t i c u l a r duty ,and not merely a remedy which i n t h e end saves the party t o whom the duty i s owed unharmed by i t s nonper- S t a t e v . McCracken, 91 Mont. 157, 6 P.2d 869. formance. In l i g h t of the f a c t s in this case only a writ of mandate can give complete r e l i e f . I t was essential t h a t r e l a t o r be granted immediate r e l i e f which would compel the appel lant-treasurer t o accept i t s money t o redeem If t h i s was n o t done immediately intervenor intervenor's tax c e r t i f i c a t e s . could turn t h e tables on r e l a t o r by redemption of r e l a t o r ' s tax s a l e c e r t i f i c a t e s , which in f a c t was done t h e very next day; o r i f the delay was extended f o r two days intervenor would apply f o r a tax deed c u t t i n g off r e l a t o r ' s r i g h t of redemption. Any remedy other than by writ of mandate would be uncertain, and neither plain, adequate o r speedy. Mandamus i s a proper remedy here t o compel the appellant, Hill County t r e a s u r e r , t o compute the tax owed and accept r e l a t o r ' s tender of money t o redeem tax s a l e c e r t i f i c a t e s owned by intervenor. S t a t e ex r e l . Federal Land Bk. v . Hays, 86 Mont. 58, 282 P. 32. Appellant a l s o r a i s e s the issue of laches. Relator's delay of 58 days a f t e r receipt of notice, a1 though two days before the s t a t u t o r y period would have expired (section 84-41 51 , R.C .M. 1947), was not unreasonably 1ong. Furthermore, the delay caused no detriment t o t h e opposing p a r t i e s . Directing our a t t e n t i o n t o the second issue f o r review we note t h a t as the holder of a tax s a l e c e r t i f i c a t e , r e l a t o r claims a l i e n under section 84-4130, R.C.M. 1947; and as a .lienholder i t claims the r i g h t t o redeem under section 84-4132, R.C.M. 1947. Section 84-4132, R.C.M. 1947, s t a t e s : "A redemption of the property sold may be made by the owner, or any party having any i n t e r G t i n or l i e n upon such property, w i t h i n t h i r t y - s i x (36) months from the date of purchase, o r a t any time p r i o r t o the giving of the notice and the application f o r a deed as provided i n this a c t . " (Emphasis supplied . ) Appellant and intervenor, on the other hand, claim t h a t r e l a t o r i s not e n t i t l e d t o redeem. They contend t h a t section 84-4151, R.C.M. 1947, only permits the "owner of the property, or the mortgagee, or the assignee of said mortgagee *** the r i g h t of redemption i n d e f i n i t e l y until such notice has been given and the deed applied f o r * * *." (Emphasis suppl ied. ) In determining who has the r i g h t of redemption i t i s n o t necessary t o look t o section 84-4151, R.C.M. 1947. That section of the Code i s p r i - mari l y a "notice" s t a t u t e r e l a t i n g t o procedural requirements r e q u i s i t e t o obtaining a tax deed. Relator's r i g h t t o redemption flows from t h e f a c t and t h a t i t i s the occupier of the land/ the assignee of a tax s a l e c e r t i f i c a t e . As the holder of such c e r t i f i c a t e i t has a l i e n in accord with section 844130, R.C.M. 1947, and as a party having a l i e n upon such property i t can certificate redeem a subsequent tax s a l e / 3 t any time before application i s made f o r the tax deed. Section 84-4132, R.C.M. 1947. For these reasons the judgment of the d i s t r i c t court i s affirmed. Associate J u s t i c e Associate J u s t i c e s /

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.