TWYFORD v. STEPHENS

TWYFORD v. STEPHENS
1938 OK 536
83 P.2d 578
183 Okla. 534
Case Number: 27384
Decided: 10/18/1938
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Twyford
v.
Stephens

Syllabus by the Court.

¶0 1. CHAMPERTY AND MAINTENANCE--Champerty Statutes not Applicable Where Grantor Sues to Quiet Title on Behalf of Grantee.
The champerty statutes have no application where the grantor maintains an action to quiet title on behalf of the grantee in the alleged champertous conveyance.
2. TAXATION--Tax Deed not Invalidated by County Clerk's Failure to Make Proper Notations on Delinquent Sales Record Where Applicant for Certificate Tax Deed Returned and Filed Notice of Application and Tax Sale Certificate.
Where a party applying for a certificate tax deed returns and files the notice of application for such deed and the tax sale certificate with the County Clerk, the failure of the County Clerk to make notation of the date and date of service of such notice on the delinquent sales record does not invalidate a tax deed based thereon. Sec. 12759, O.S.1931, 68 Okl.St.Ann. § 451.
3. SAME--Action by Former Owner of Land to Quiet Title as Against One Claiming Title Under Tax Deed--Waiver of Plaintiff's Failure to Make Tender Required by Statute--Reimbursement of Deed Holder for Tax outlay as Prerequisite to Judgment Canceling Deed.
The failure of a former owner of land sold for taxes suing to quiet title as against one claiming title under the tax deed, to tender the taxes, interest, penalties and costs assessed against the land, as required by Secs. 12761 and 12763, O.S.1931, 68 Okl.St.Ann. §§ 453, 455, is not raised by motion for judgment on the pleadings that does not specifically call attention to the failure to make tender. Unless such failure to make tender is specifically raised in the trial court, it will be deemed waived. However, payment of such sums will be required as a prerequisite to the entry of judgment cancelling the tax deed by reason of the provisions of Sec. 12668, O.S.1931, 68 Okl.St.Ann. § 360, when the question is called to the attention of the trial court prior to the entry of judgment.

Appeal from District Court, Love County; W. G. Long, Judge.

Action to quiet title by Sybil M. Stephens, n©e Sanders, against James S. Twyford and another. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal.

Reversed with directions.

William J. Crowe, of Oklahoma City, and Earl A. Brown, of Ardmore, for plaintiffs in error.
Keller & Cameron, of Marietta, for defendant in error.

HURST, Justice.

¶1 This is an action to quiet title and involves the validity of a certificate tax deed in defendant's chain of title. Judgment was rendered for plaintiff and defendants appeal.

¶2 We will consider first plaintiff's contention in support of the judgment that the deed under which defendants claim is champertous and void. One W. C. Foster obtained a certificate tax deed to the property in question on June 19, 1925. He conveyed the property by quitclaim deed to T. M. Langley on November 12, 1925, who in turn conveyed to defendants on February 25, 1931. Plaintiff claims the deeds of Foster to Langley and Langley to defendants are champertous. These contentions are not well taken. The record shows that plaintiffs did not acquire title to and possession of the property until 1931. There is nothing, therefore, to show that the deed from Foster to Langley was champertous. If we assume the Langley deed to defendants was champertous, that cannot avail plaintiffs here because Langley is a party to the law suit defending and prosecuting the action on behalf of defendants. It is well established in this jurisdiction that a champertous deed is valid as between the grantor and grantee therein and that the grantor may maintain an action for the use and benefit of his grantee and the judgment in favor of the grantor inures to the benefit of the grantee. Gannon v. Johnston, 1914, 40 Okl. 695, 140 P. 430, Ann.Cas.1915D, 522; Slyman v. Alexander, 1927, 126 Okl. 232, 259 P. 224; Cox v. Fowler, 1929, 141 Okl. 110, 283 P. 995.

¶3 2. Defendants urge several grounds for reversal, but we need only consider the contention that the trial court erred in decreeing defendants' tax deed void because of the failure of the County Clerk to make notation on the delinquent sales record of the date of service of the notice of application for tax deed and the tax sale certificate. The applicable statute is Sec. 12759, U.S.1931, 68 Okl.St.Ann. § 451, which reads in part as follows: "The notice, with the tax sale certificate, after being duly served or published, or both, shall be returned and filed in the office of the county clerk, who shall make notation of its date and the date of service on the delinquent sale record * * *".

¶4 The case of Adams v. Rogers, 1932, 158 Okl. 163, 13 P.2d 170, relied on by plaintiff, holds that the above provision is mandatory and not directory. In that case, the court was dealing with the failure of the party applying for a tax deed to comply with said statute by filing the notice with the tax sale certificate. Here such notice and certificate were returned and filed with the County Clerk, but that officer failed to make the proper notations. The tax deed holder did all that the law required of him and in such case he will not lose his rights because of the failure of the public officer to make the notations with which he is charged by law. Hodges v. Simpson, 1922, 89 Okl. 80, 213 P. 737. See, also, Jepeway v. Barrett, 1933, 165 Okl. 220, 25 P.2d 661, and Street, Adm'r, v. Board of Com'rs of Cotton County, 1937, 180 Okl. 177, 68 P.2d 514, which are in harmony with this holding.

¶5 3. It is next urged that the court committed error in overruling the motion for judgment on the pleadings for the reason that the plaintiff did not tender the taxes, interest, penalties and costs assessed against the land. The tax deed was first mentioned in the pleadings by the answer and cross-petition of the defendants. Plaintiff in his reply alleged that the tax deed is void. The defendants did not in said motion for judgment on the pleadings or in their pleadings specifically mention the failure to make tender, which should be done in order to preserve the point. Courtney v. Worley, 1937, 181 Okl. 399, 74 P.2d 370. However, plaintiff in her brief states that the question of tender was presented to the trial court by the defendants at the conclusion of the evidence, and the court refused to require payment of the taxes because he found the deed to be void. Under Sec. 12668, O.S.1931, 68 Okl.St.Ann. § 360 it was the duty of the court to require such payment as a prerequisite to the entry of judgment in plaintiff's favor, when the question was called to the attention of the court prior to the entry of judgment. See Parks v. Lyons, Okl.Sup., 83 P.2d 573; Schulte v. Herndon, Okl.Sup., 84 P.2d 607, this day decided.

¶6 The judgment is reversed with directions to grant a new trial and to proceed not inconsistent with the views herein expressed.