YETTER v GALLATIN CO

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 81-184 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTAN GERALD P. YETTER, Plaintiff and Appellant, GALLATIN COUNTY; RUTH B. STUCKEY, Gallatin County Treasurer; LUCILLE BRIDGES, et al., Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Gallatin Honorable W. W. Lessley, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Allen McAlear argued and Lawrence Swenson argued, Bozeman, Montana For Respondents: Donald E. White, County Attorney, Bozeman, Montana Berg, Coil, Stokes & Tollefsen, Bozeman, Montana Ben E. Berg argued, Bozeman, Montana For Amicus Curiae: Honorable Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Submitted: March 1, 1982 Decided: May 17, 1982 Filed: MAY 17 1982 J u s t i c e J o h n Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d the Court. the Opinion of the Eighteenth f o r G a l l a t i n County, t o annul a Mr. Gerald Yetter J u d i c i a l District., t a x deed. filed i n and an action in t h e t a x deed p u r c h a s e r , w a s g r a n t e d L e e McDonald, summary j udgment, and Yetter a p p e a l s . The c o n t r o v e r s y i n t h i s c a s e c e n t e r s a r o u n d t h e 400a c r e G r e a t S p r i n g s Ranch l o c a t e d on t h e e d g e o f Lake Hebgen. Gerald (hereinafter Yetter s i n c e 1960. "owner" ) has owned t-he ranch I n 1 9 7 5 h e l e a s e d t h e r a n c h and moved t o I d a h o . H i s forwarding a d d r e s s a t t h e p o s t o f f i c e e x p i r e d i n 1976. The owner f a i l e d t o p a y t a x e s f r o m 1 9 7 5 t h r o u g h 1 9 7 8 , a n d o n J u l y 1 9 , 1 9 7 9 , Lee McDonald ( h e r e i n a f t e r " p u r c h a s e r " ) purchased t h e one m i l l i o n d o l l a r ranch f o r $4,085.79 taxes. i n back The c o u n t y t r e a s u r e r i s s u e d t h e p u r c h a s e r a n a s s i g n - ment o f t h e t a x s a l e c e r t - i f i c a t e s on t h a t d a t e . On J u l y 3, 1979, the purchaser mailed a not.ice of a p p l i c a t i o n f o r t a x d e e d t o t h e o w n e r ' s e x p i r e d West YellowThe same n o t i c e was p u b l i s h e d s t o n e p o s t o f f i c e box. for two weeks commencing A u g u s t 1 4 , 1 9 7 9 . tax A October 15, deed 1979, was issued based on by the the county treasurer on purchaser's affidavit of s e r v i c e of n o t i c e of a p p l i c a t i o n f o r t a x deed. A claim o f t a x t i t l e was p u b l i s h e d b y t h e p u r c h a s e r o n O c t o b e r 1 7 and 2 4 , 1 9 7 9 , p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 15-18-403, MCH. I n t h e i n s t ~ a n t case t h e owner had no n o t i c e w h a t s o ever that however, his ranch w a s being sold for taxes. A friend, s a w t h e l a s t . p u b l i c n o t i c e i n t h e p a p e r and n o t - i - f i e d t h e owner. 'The owner went t o the county treasurer's o f f i c e on November or 15 to 16 to calculate t r e a s u r e r had n o t do it t h a t day. treasurer redeem the a blank check, asked the property. total Therefore, and $5,000, his 'The amount d u e and t h e owner gave good a for to treasurer county- sum the county to not complete could exceed for it the amount n e c e s s a r y t o r e d e e m h i s p r o p e r t y . The 'The owner's dctual checking amount account contained was a p p r o x i m a t e l y due $4,442.18. $4,270. However, t h e county t r e a s u r e r included t a x e s due on o t h e r l a n d s t h a t the owner had sold, which brought the tax total to Thus, t h e o w n e r ' s a c c o u n t had i n s u f f i c i e n t f u n d s $4,885.63. to c o v e r t h e check, 'The o w n e r then and the period deposited $4,300 f o r redemption expired. with the court and filed s u i t to annul t h e t a x deed. The p r o p e r t y d e s c r i p t i o n u s e d b y t h e c o u n t y t r e a s u r e r and the tax deed purchaser was an abbreviated d e s c r i p t i o n p r e p a r e d by and f o r t h e u s e o f t h e c o u n t y t a x a s s e s s o r . d e s c r i p t i o n does not indicate i n which t r a c t o f l a n d t h e r a n c h is l o c a t e d . was u s e d chaser's affidavit of tax sale, certificates not-ice of of notice of the tax application of a large this description Yet, i n t h e county t r e a s u r e r ' s records, certificates duplicate portion of The the treasurer's treasurer 's assignment s a l e to t h e purchaser, of pur- for the tax deed and his application for t a x deed, the tax d e e d i t s e l f , and t h e n o t i c e o f claim o f t a x t i t l e . The s o l e i s s u e c o n s i d e r e d i s : has t h e d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e real property d e f i c i e n t ? The d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e r e a l p r o p e r t y u s e d in the tax s a l e p r o c e e d i n g s is a s f o l l o w s : "Pt.. SE4 l e s s 1.2A t r . i n N2SE4 a n d S2SW4NE4 - S e c . 1 2 , Twp 1 2 S , Rge 4E. tr. in P t . SW4 l e s s 9.79A a n d SW4LVW4, L W ~ S W ~ and t r . H s u b j e c t t o f l o o d r i g h t s 7, Twp 1 2 S , Rge 5E. "W2SE4, less R-W Sec. "NW4NE4, NE4SE4Nv74 w i t h 9.624 a l s o a s s e s s e d t o M o n t a n a Power u n d e r f l o o d r i g h t s - S e c . 1 8 , 'fwp 1 2 S , Rge 5E." The d e s c r i p t i o n in the instant is t o o vague t o case a d e q u a t e l y i d e n t i f y t h e l a n d i n q u e s t i o n , and t h e r e f o r e , t h e is description fatally ( 1 9 4 6 ) , 1 1 9 Mont. 393, defective. 1 7 5 P.2d See, Miller v. ivIurphy Miller 1 8 2 ; Mary M. D a n i e l s ( 1 9 0 7 ) , 47 Wash. 411, 92 P. v. Edmondson ( 1 9 7 0 ) , 8 1 N.M. 467, 468 P.2d 632. under section The MCA, was notice of deficient . t h a t the published publication S e c t ion "fiotice of 268. ., v. Cf Sons & 15-18-403 ( 2 ) , claim of a MCA, tax Thus, 15-18-403, provides title" s e t f o r t h a d e s c r i p t i o n o f any p r o p e r t y claimed. above, Komadina shall A s noted is v o i d f o r v a g u e n e s s . t h e p r o p e r t y d e s c r i p t i o n used t h e p u r c h a s e r a l s o h a s f a i l e d t o meet t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f s e c t i o n 15-18-403(2), MCA. S e v e r a l o t h e r i s s u e s have been r a i s e d i n t h i s a p p e a l , including However, the the const.itutionality t.ax d e e d is v o i d , of s e c t i o n 15-18-403, so we need not iVICA. reach t.he remaining i s s u e s . Reversed and cancel t h e t a x deed. remanded. The Dist.rict Court shall Ne c o n c u r :

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.