ALDEN v JOHNSON

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 12866 I N THE SUPREME C U T O THE STATE OF M N A A OR F OTN 1975 ROBERT A. ALDEN, p l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t , -vs - EDWARD JOHNSON, e t a l e , Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Second J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , on or able John B e McClernan, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record: For Appellant : John L e s l i e Hamner argued, B u t t e , Montana For Respondents: Mark P. S u l l i v a n argued, B u t t e , Montana Submitted: Decided : A p r i l 7, 1975 MRY' SY 8 1975 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 of t h e Court. This i s an a p p e a l from a summary judgment f o r defendants by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , S i l v e r Bow County, t h e Hon. John B. IfcClernan, presiding. The complaint a l l e g e d t h a t a t a x deed i s s u e d t o defendants Johnson had been improperly g r a n t e d , and prayed t h a t a t a x deed be i s s u e d t o p l a i n t i f f and t i t l e q u i e t e d i n him. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t had t h e s e f a c t s b e f o r e i t . I n 1958, defendants Johnson began paying d e l i n q u e n t t a x e s on c e r t a i n vacant l o t s a d j o i n i n g p r o p e r t y they occupied i n B u t t e , Montana. The owner of r e c o r d of t h o s e l o t s was Robert H. C u r t i s , who was named a defendant i n t h i s a c t i o n b u t d i d n o t appear. Johnsons r e c e i v e d assignments of t a x c e r t i f i c a t e s f o r t h e y e a r s 1951 through 1968. I n 1972 t h e y i n i t i a t e d t h e procedures r e q u i r e d f o r s e c u r i n g a t a x deed by f i l i n g n o t i c e o f a p p l i c a t i o n f o r t h a t deed. Following t h e s t a t u t o r y w a i t i n g p e r i o d , Johnsons a p p l i e d f o r and r e c e i v e d a t a x deed. P l a i n t i f f Robert R. Alden's predecessor i n i n t e r e s t paid t h e d e l i n q u e n t t a x e s f o r t h e y e a r s 1969 through 1971 and t h e c e r t i f i c a t e r e c e i v e d t h e r e f o r was subsequently assigned t o Alden. A f t e r Johnson had f i l e d n o t i c e of a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a t a x deed, Alden tendered redemption of ~ o h n s o n s ' i n t e r e s t by p r e s e n t i n g t h e approp r i a t e sum t o t h e county t r e a s u r e r . The t r e a s u r e r r e f u s e d t o i s s u e a redemption c e r t i f i c a t e t o Alden and t h e t a x deed subsequently was i s s u e d t o Johnsons. Alden then brought t h i s a c t i o n and i s now a p p e a l i n g from t h e a d v e r s e r u l i n g i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . A s i n g l e i s s u e controls t h i s appeal: Does Alden have an i n t e r e s t s u f f i c i e n t t o support h i s q u i e t t i t l e a c t i o n ? I n h i s a p p e l l a t e b r i e f , Alden a s s e r t s : "While i t i s recognized by Appellant t h a t he could have pursued a c o u r s e of mandate a s t o h i s attempted redemption and a p p l i c a t i o n f o r t a x deed; he h a s r e l i e d on h i s t i t l e purchased from t h e C u r t i s Heirs and t h e I n t e r l o q u t o r y [ s i c ] Decree g i v i n g him ' c o l o r of t i t l e ' i n order t o challange [ s i c ] ~ e s p o n d e n t' i n v a l i d s t a x deed based on a d e f e c t i v e a f f i d a v i t . ' ' Alden's r e l i a n c e i s misplaced. The t i t l e a l l e g e d l y purchased from t h e C u r t i s h e i r s was t r a n s f e r r e d on A p r i l 24, 1973, approximately two weeks a f t e r t h i s a c t i o n was f i l e d . T h i s Court i n Brown v , Cartwright, 163 Mont. 139, 515 P.2d 684, 30 St.Rep. "* 966, 976, h e l d : ** t h e f i l i n g of a q u i e t t i t l e a c t i o n f r e e z e s t h e r e s p e c t i v e r i g h t s of t h e p a r t i e s a t t h e time of commencement of t h e a c t i o n . J ; * JC.~' Thus Alden's p o s i t i o n could n o t b e improved by e v e n t s o c c u r r i n g a f t e r t h e a c t i o n was f i l e d . The " i n t e r l o c u t o r y decree" t o which he r e f e r s i s a d e f a u l t judgment e n t e r e d a g a i n s t t h o s e named defendants who f a i l e d t o answer t h e complaint o r t o appear i n t h i s a c t i o n . W f i n d no e a u t h o r i t y , and Alden c i t e s none, which h o l d s t h a t t i t l e o r c o l o r of t i t l e a r i s e s from a d e f a u l t judgment a g a i n s t a l l persons o t h e r than t h e h o l d e r of a t a x deed t o t h e p r o p e r t y i n q u e s t i o n . F i n a l l y , Alden h a s n o t a p p l i e d f o r n o r r e c e i v e d a t a x deed i n accordance w i t h t h e requirements of s e c t i o n 84-4151, R.C.M. 1947. Thus t h e only i n t e r e s t i n t h e p r o p e r t y which Alden may c l a i m i s t h a t which i s c o n f e r r e d by t h e assignments of t a x s a l e certificates. The mere assignment of t a x s a l e c e r t i f i c a t e s c o n f e r s no t i t l e o r c o l o r of t i t l e . Diamond Inv. Co. v. Geagan, 154 Mont. 122, 460 P.2d 760; Magelssen v. Atwell, 152 Mont. 409, 451 P.2d 103. The absence of any t i t l e i n t h e p l a i n t i f f i s f a t a l t o h i s c h a l l e n g e t o t h e v a l i d i t y of a t a x deed. T h i s Court i n Smith v. Whitney, 105 Mont. 523, 529, 74 P.2d 450, s t a t e d : "* * * no person may q u e s t i o n t h e v a l i d i t y of a t a x s a l e o r deed u n l e s s he can f i r s t show t h a t h e , of t h o s e under whom he c l a i m s , had some t i t l e t o t h e p r o p e r t y a t t h e time of t h e s a l e . " The mere possession of an assignment of a t a x s a l e c e r t i f i c a t e i s i n s u f f i c i e n t t o support a q u i e t t i t l e a c t i o n . BowCounty, 151 Mont, 283, 443 P.2d 6. Johnson v. S i l v e r Even i f we were t o f i n d some r i g h t i n Alden t o b r i n g t h i s c l a i m , we would be compelled t o d e c i d e t h e m e r i t s on t h e s t r e n g t h of A l d e n ' s t i t l e , n o t on a l l e g e d weaknesses i n t h e ~ o h n s o n s ' . NcAlpin v, Smith, 123 Mont. 391, 213 P.2d 602; Ross v. F i r s t T r u s t & Savings Bank, 123 Mont. 81, 208 P.2d 490. Alden simply has no t i t l e t o quiet. The p r i n c i p a l c a s e r e l i e d upon by Alden i n h i s a p p e a l i s S t a t e ex r e l . Burkhartsmeyer Brothers v. I~cCormick, 162 Mont. 234, 510 P.2d 266, which involved a mandamus a c t i o n . Our h o l d i n g t h e r e does n o t c o n s i d e r t h e c o n t r o l l i n g i s s u e h e r e involved. Nor w i l l we a g a i n d i s c u s s t h e l e g a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s s u r rounding t h e law of summary judgments under Rule 56, M,R.Civ.P. Those c o n s i d e r a t i o n s have been s e t o u t i n S t a t e ex r e l . C i t y Motor Co., I n c . v. D i s t . Court, Mon t . , 530 P.2d 486, 32 S t . Rep. 34. The judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s a f f i r m e d . Justice W Concur: e Justices. Hon. E. Gardner Brownlee, D i s t r i c t Judge, s i t t i n g f o r Chief J u s t i c e James T. Harrison.

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.