STENSVAD v MUSSELSHELL COUNTY

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 13492 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1978 LARRY D. STENSVAD and MARGARET STENSVAD, M-V ENTERPRISES, INC., a Montana corporation, and FAUNCO, INC., a Montana corporation, Plaintiffs and Appellants, MUSSELSHELL COUNTY, GENO MINNIE, O.S. ELLIS and R. JORGENSON, County Commissioners, ROBERT L. HAGSTROM, County Assessor, and MARGARET A. REIGHARD, County Treasurer, Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: District Court of the Fourteenth Judicial District, Honorable Nat Allen, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants: Moses, Tolliver and Wright, Billings, Montana Towe, Ball, Enright and Mackey, Billings, Montana Thomas Towe argued, Billings, Montana For Respondents: John L. Pratt, County Attorney, argued, Roundup, Montana Submitted: November 27, 1978 Decided:lVlAj? -; q7o J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e Court. Mr. P l a i n t i f f s a p p e a l from a judgment o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , M u s s e l s h e l l County, denying t h e i r p r a y e r f o r a n o r d e r permanently e n j o i n i n g d e f e n d a n t s from i s s u i n g a t a x deed t o c e r t a i n r e a l p r o p e r t y f o r f a i l u r e t o pay a p o r t i o n o f a 1 9 7 1 a s s e s s m e n t r e p r e s e n t i n g t a x e s on c a t t l e under t h e c o n t r o l and i n t h e p o s s e s s i o n of M-V E n t e r p r i s e s . The c o u r t e n t e r e d i t s amended f i n d i n g s of f a c t , c o n c l u s i o n s o f law, judgment and o r d e r on J u n e 3 0 , 1976, d i r e c t i n g d e f e n d a n t s t o p r o c e e d f o r t h w i t h t o t a k e t a x deed t o t h e r e a l p r o p e r t y , now owned by p l a i n t i f f Faunco, I n c . P l a i n t i f f s contend t h a t c e r t a i n o f t h e c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s o f law a r e e r r o n e o u s and u n s u p p o r t e d by t h e e v i d e n c e , and t h a t , t h e r e f o r e , t h e judgment s h o u l d b e r e v e r s e d . I n 1971, L a r r y D. S t e n s v a d w a s a s t o c k h o l d e r i n and/or manager of c e r t a i n c o r p o r a t i o n s i n v o l v e d i n v a r i o u s a s p e c t s of t h e l i v e s t o c k industry. One of t h o s e c o r p o r a t i o n s , M-V E n t e r p r i s e s , among whose p r i n c i p l e s h a r e h o l d e r s w a s S t e n s v a d , owned r e a l p r o p e r t y i n M u s s e l s h e l l County upon which t h e corporation operated a feedlot. Pursuant t o an agree- ment between M-V E n t e r p r i s e s and t h e L. D. S t e n s v a d C a t t l e Company, c a t t l e b e l o n g i n g t o o t h e r i n d i v i d u a l s w e r e l e f t i n t h e p o s s e s s i o n and c o n t r o l o f M-V E n t e r p r i s e s t o b e f e d and cared f o r i n p r e p a r a t i o n f o r marketing. These c a t t l e had been p u r c h a s e d by a s e p a r a t e S t e n s v a d c o r p o r a t i o n , t h e L. D. S t e n s v a d C a t t l e Company, whose o n l y s h a r e h o l d e r s w e r e S t e n s vad and h i s w i f e , M a r g a r e t . L. D. The a r r a n g e m e n t was s u c h t h a t S t e n s v a d C a t t l e Company would buy c a t t l e f o r i n d i v i - dual out-of-state i n v e s t o r s who had c o n t r a c t e d w i t h t h e company t o make t h e p u r c h a s e s f o r them. The c a t t l e s o p u r c h a s e d were d e l i v e r e d t o t h e f e e d l o t s of M-V E n t e r p r i s e s f o r c a r e and f e e d i n g ; t h e L. D . S t e n s v a d C a t t l e Company billed the individual investors f o r t h e i r respective shares of t h e expenses incurred. Each of t h e c a t t l e i n v o l v e d i n t h i s a r r a n g e m e n t c a r r i e d on i t s r i g h t h i p a p i t c h f o r k o r " t u r k e y t r a c k " b r a n d owned by and r e g i s t e r e d t o t h e L. D . S t e n s v a d C a t t l e Company; on i t s r i g h t s h o u l d e r , e a c h b o r e a n u n r e g i s t e r e d b r a n d , a number, d e s i g n a t i n g i t s i n d i v i d u a l owner. I n May, 1971, t h e M u s s e l s h e l l County a s s e s s o r , i n t h e p r o c e s s of c o m p i l i n g d a t a f o r t h e upcoming t a x a s s e s s m e n t , s u p p l i e d M-V E n t e r p r i s e s w i t h a form which, when completed, i s a r e c o r d of t h e number of c a t t l e which have been f e d d u r i n g e a c h month of t h e p r e c e d i n g y e a r . v i d e d i n compliance w i t h s e c t i o n 84-409, The form i s p r o R.C.M. 1947, i n e f f e c t a t t h e t i m e o f t h e e v e n t s , which r e q u i r e s t h e c o u n t y a s s e s s o r t o o b t a i n from e a c h p e r s o n a w r i t t e n s t a t e m e n t , made under o a t h , which sets f o r t h a l l t h e t a x a b l e p r o p e r t y owned by t h a t p e r s o n o r i n h i s p o s s e s s i o n o r under h i s c o n t r o l as of a s p e c i f i c t i m e . Each s u c h form c o n t a i n s a n a f f i d a v i t which d e c l a r e s t h a t t h e l i s t i s a f u l l and c o r r e c t s t a t e m e n t of t h e p r o p e r t y s u b j e c t t o t a x a t i o n which i s owned, c l a i m e d , p o s s e s s e d o r c o n t r o l l e d by t h e i n d i v i d u a l o r business e n t i t y . S e e s e c t i o n 84-410, R.C.M. 1947. M-V E n t e r p r i s e s r e t u r n e d t o t h e c o u n t y a s s e s s o r t h e completed form, which had been s i g n e d by Dona McCleary, a s e c r e t a r y employed by t h e c o r p o r a t i o n . The form showed n o t h i n g a s t o t h e ownership of t h e c a t t l e . The a s s e s s o r , f o l l o w i n g s t a t u t o r y mandate, s e c t i o n 844 0 6 ( 1 ) and (3), R.C.M. 1947 (Supp. 1 9 7 1 ) , a s s e s s e d t a x e s o n 1 / 1 2 of t h e t o t a l number of c a t t l e a g a i n s t M-V E n t e r p r i s e s , t h e p a r t y i n whose p o s s e s s i o n and under whose c o n t r o l t h e cattle were. The c o r p o r a t i o n , m a i n t a i n i n g t h a t i t c o u l d n o t b e t a x e d f o r c a t t l e which i t d i d n o t own, r e f u s e d t o pay. either t h e p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y t a x e s n o r t h e r e a l p r o p e r t y t a x e s a s s e s s e d f o r 1971 a g a i n s t M-V E n t e r p r i s e s w e r e p a i d , and t h e c o u n t y , i n 1976, f i n a l l y i n s t i t u t e d p r o c e e d i n g s f o r a t a x deed. On F e b r u a r y 1 8 , 1976, p l a i n t i f f s , a l l e g i n g t h a t no s t a t u t o r y a u t h o r i t y e x i s t e d under which t h e c o u n t y leg a l l y c o u l d assess a g a i n s t them t a x e s on c a t t l e owned by o t h e r i n d i v i d u a l s , p e t i t i o n e d t h e D i s t r i c t Court f o r an o r d e r e n j o i n i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t s from t a k i n g t a x deed u n l e s s t h e t o t a l amount, $27,990.39, w a s p a i d by March 1 0 , 1976. Faunco, I n c . h a s j o i n e d a s a p a r t y p l a i n t i f f , b e c a u s e i t i s t h e p r e s e n t owner of t h e r e a l p r o p e r t y s u b j e c t of t h i s action, I n November, 1971, M-V E n t e r p r i s e s , by v i r t u e of a n u n r e c o r d e d a s s i g n m e n t from L. D. and M a r g a r e t S t e n s v a d , owned t h e r e a l p r o p e r t y s u b j e c t o f t h e s e t a x deed proceedings. A t that time, a Roundup bank d e c l a r e d L. D. S t e n s v a d and M-V E n t e r p r i s e s i n d e f a u l t on c e r t a i n o b l i g a t i o n s and f o r e c l o s e d on t h e p r o p e r t y . Roundup C a t t l e F e e d e r s , a c o r p o r a t i o n u n i n v o l v e d i n t h i s l i t i g a t i o n and i n which none o f t h e p a r t i e s h e r e t o a p p e a r s t o have a n i n t e r e s t , bought t h e property a t a foreclosure sale. 1975, Faunco, I n c . , C a t t l e Feeders. Subsequently, i n June, p u r c h a s e d t h e p r o p e r t y from Roundup Although a p p a r e n t l y n o t a s h a r e h o l d e r i n Faunco, I n c . , L. D. S t e n s v a d i s i t s g e n e r a l manager and i t s r e g i s t e r e d agent. Faunco, I n c , , h a s t e n d e r e d payment of t h e o u t s t a n d i n g t a x e s owed on t h e r e a l p r o p e r t y , e x c l u s i v e of t h e amounts l e v i e d f o r t h e c a t t l e owned by t h e i n d i v i d u a l i n v e s t o r s ; t h e c o u n t y t w i c e r e j e c t e d t h e o f f e r of t h a t payment. Faunco r e q u e s t s t h a t t h e c o u n t y be o r d e r e d t o make a n a s s e s s m e n t which d o e s n o t i n c l u d e t a x e s on t h e c a t t l e , s o t h a t t h e c o r p o r a t i o n may pay t h a t amount and t h e r e b y c l e a r i t s t i t l e of t h e t a x l i e n . On A p r i l 1 6 , 1976, t h e Honorable Nat A l l e n p r e s i d e d o v e r a h e a r i n g on t h e m e r i t s of t h e c a s e . I n i t s amended f i n d i n g s of f a c t , c o n c l u s i o n s of law, and judgment, the c o u r t concluded t h a t t h e t a x e s w e r e l a w f u l l y a s s e s s e d and d e n i e d p l a i n t i f f s any r e l i e f . N o t i c e of a p p e a l w a s t i m e l y f i l e d and o r a l argument h e a r d by t h i s C o u r t . Although t h e D i s t r i c t Court properly decided t h a t t h e county a s s e s s o r c o r r e c t l y a s s e s s e d t h e t a x e s due on t h e c a t t l e t o M-V E n t e r p r i s e s , i n whose p o s s e s s i o n and c o n t r o l t h e c a t t l e w e r e a t t h e t i m e o f a s s e s s m e n t , w e r e v e r s e t h a t p o r t i o n of t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n which, i n e f f e c t , p r e c l u d e s Faunco from p a y i n g a l l t a x e s and p e n a l t i e s d u e , e x c l u s i v e of t h o s e a s s e s s e d against the cattle. P l a i n t i f f s a l l e g e t h a t numerous e r r o r s a r e t o b e found i n t h e c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s , b u t o n l y one of t h o s e , whether t h e c o u n t y a s s e s s o r a c t e d p r o p e r l y , i n conf o r m i t y w i t h s e c t i o n 84-406, R.C.M. 1947 (Supp. 1 9 7 1 ) , i n a s s e s s i n g t h e t a x e s due o n t h e c a t t l e t o M-V E n t e r p r i s e s , merits consideration. S e c t i o n 84-406, R.C.M. 1947 (Supp. 1 9 7 1 ) , c o n t r o l l i n g a t t h e t i m e of t h e e v e n t s complained of by p l a i n t i f f s , r e a d s i n pertinent part: " (1) The a s s e s s o r must, between t h e f i r s t Monday of March and t h e second Monday of J u l y i n e a c h y e a r , a s c e r t a i n t h e names of a l l t a x a b l e i n h a b i t a n t s , and a s s e s s a l l p r o p e r t y i n h i s c o u n t y subj e c t t o t a x a t i o n , e x c e p t such a s i s r e q u i r e d t o b e a s s e s s e d by t h e s t a t e board of e q u a l i z a t i o n , and must a s s e s s s u c h p r o p e r t y t o t h e p e r s o n s by whom i t was owned o r c l a i m e d , o r i n whose p o s s e s - s i o n o r c o n t r o l i t w a s a t 1 2 m i d n i g h t of t h e f i r s t Monday o f March n e x t p r e c e d i n g . The p r o c e d u r e p r o v i d e d by t h i s s e c t i o n s h a l l n o t apply to: .. " ( b ) L i v e s t o c k b e i n g -d-n f e e d i n g -n-o r fe i pe s e n c l o s u r e s which may- s u b d i v i s i o n -)- -h i s - by ( 3 of t s e c t i o n be assessed - - average inventory b a s i s . on a n C r e d i t s =st b e a s s e s s e d a s p r o v i d e d i n s e c t i o n 84-101, s u b d i v i s i o n 6." S u b d i v i s i o n ( 3 ) s t a t e s how s u c h l i v e s t o c k s h a l l be assessed: " ( 3 ) The a s s e s s e d v a l u e of l i v e s t o c k b e i n g f e d i n f e e d i n g pens o r e n c l o s u r e s on t h e f i r s t Monday i n March may b e computed by a d d i n g t h e v a l u e of l i v e s t o c k more t h a n s i x ( 6 ) months of a g e b e i n g f e d o n t h e l a s t day o f e a c h month s i n c e t h e l a s t u a s s e s s m e n t d a t e and d i v i d i n g t h e s m by t w e l v e (12) ." The s t a t u t e i s w r i t t e n i n t h e d i s j u n c t i v e , mandating t h e a s s e s s o r t o assess a l l t a x a b l e p r o p e r t y i n h i s c o u n t y e i t h e r or i n t o t h e p e r s o n s by whom i t w a s owned o r c l a i m e d - - whose or i t was p o s s e s s i o n - c o n t r o l - - a s o f m i d n i g h t of t h e f i r s t Monday of March. I t i s c l e a r t h a t t h e a s s e s s o r a c t e d prop- e r l y i n a s s e s s i n g t o M-V E n t e r p r i s e s , i n whose p o s s e s s i o n and c o n t r o l t h e c a t t l e w e r e , t a x e s on t h e c a t t l e . P l a i n t i f f s have s o u g h t a n i n j u n c t i o n p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 84-4505, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 15-1-405 MCA. That s t a t - ute states: "No i n j u n c t i o n must b e g r a n t e d by any c o u r t o r judge t o r e s t r a i n t h e c o l l e c t i o n of any t a x o r any p a r t t h e r e o f , n o r t o r e s t r a i n t h e s a l e of any p r o p e r t y f o r t h e nonpayment o f t a x e s , e x c e p t : " 1 . Where t h e t a x , o r t h e p a r t t h e r e o f s o u g h t t o b e e n j o i n e d , i s i l l e g a l , o r i s n o t a u t h o r i z e d by law. I f t h e payment of a p a r t of a t a x i s s o u g h t t o b e e n j o i n e d , t h e o t h e r p a r t must b e p a i d bef o r e a n a c t i o n c a n b e commenced. "2. Where t h e p r o p e r t y i s exempt from t a x a t i o n . " Although t h e y a l l e g e a t v a r i o u s t i m e s t h a t t h e t a x a s s e s s ment h e r e i s b o t h i l l e g a l and n o t a u t h o r i z e d by law, p l a i n t i f f s o f f e r no l e g a l arguments i n s u p p o r t of t h a t p o s i t i o n . Obviously t h e t a x i s a u t h o r i z e d by l a w . t i o n 84-406, R.C.M. The s t a t u t e , s e c - 1947 (Supp. 1 9 7 1 ) , s p e a k s f o r i t s e l f . W e p o i n t o u t i n p a s s i n g t h a t s u c h s t a t u t e s have l o n g s i n c e passed c o n s t i t u t i o n a l muster. A s a leading authority o b s e r v e d o v e r f i f t y y e a r s ago: " S t a t u t e s sometimes p r o v i d e t h a t t a n g i b l e p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y s h a l l b e a s s e s s e d wherever i n t h e s t a t e i t may b e , e i t h e r t o t h e owner h i m s e l f o r t o t h e agent o r o t h e r person having i t i n charge; and t h e r e i s no d o u b t of t h e r i g h t t o d o t h i s , whether t h e owner i s r e s i d e n t i n t h e s t a t e o r n o t . [ C l a t t l e and s h e e p may b e r e q u i r e d by t h e s t a t u t e t o b e a s s e s s e d where t h e y a r e k e p t o r where t h e y have been t a k e n t o g r a z e o r t o b e f e d 3 T. Cooley, - - -of T a x a t i o n § l o 7 1 ( 4 t h e d . The Law 1924). . . ." I t h a s been t h e g e n e r a l r u l e s i n c e t h e t u r n of t h e c e n t u r y t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t u r e h a s t h e power t o a d o p t a mode of a s s e s s m e n t s u c h t h a t p r o p e r t y may b e a s s e s s e d t o t h e p a r t y i n p o s s e s s i o n of i t . The North Dakota Supreme C o u r t d e c l a r e d : " I n d e e d , t h e n e c e s s i t y f o r speedy and c e r t a i n methods of p r o d u c i n g r e v e n u e f o r governmental s u p p o r t i s s o g r e a t t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t u r e s of many s t a t e s have d e c l i n e d t o e n t e r i n t o a n i n v e s t i g a t i o n of t i t l e s f o r t h e p u r p o s e of t a x a t i o n , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n r e f e r e n c e t o p r o p e r t y of a s h i f t i n g n a t u r e , and have, a c c o r d i n g l y , p r o v i d e d f o r a s s e s s m e n t s a g a i n s t t h e p a r t y having t h e p o s s e s s i o n and c o n t r o l upon some s p e c i f i e d d a t e . Such e n a c t m e n t s have been r e p e a t e d l y b e f o r e t h e c o u r t s , and have been u n i f o r m l y upheld. I n d e e d , we a r e c i t e d t o no c a s e which h a s d e n i e d t h e r i g h t o f a s t a t e t o e n f o r c e t h i s method o f a s s e s s m e n t . " M i n n e a p o l i s & N o r t h e r n E l e v a t o r Co. v . T r a i l 1 County ( 1 9 0 0 ) , 9 N.D. 213, , 82 N.W. 727, 728, and c a s e s s u b s e q u e n t l y c i t e d . We, t o o , have been c i t e d t o no c a s e which h a s d e n i e d t h e r i g h t of a s t a t e t o e n f o r c e t h e method of a s s e s s m e n t which o u r l e g i s l a t u r e h a s s e e n f i t t o a d o p t . We, t o o , a r e of t h e o p i n i o n t h a t " ' " p o s s e s s o r y c o n t r o l of p r o p e r t y i s s u f f i c i e n t t o a u t h o r i z e i t s assessment t o t h e possessor o r k e e p e r of i t . " ' " Minneapolis ~ r a i l County, 82 N.W. l a t 729. & N o r t h e r n E l e v a t o r Co. v . Furthermore, "[wle a r e convinced t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t u r e had t h e r i g h t t o a c t upon e v i d e n c e of ownership a f f o r d e d by p o s s e s s i o n , and f o r t h e p u r p o s e s of t a x a t i o n t o make t h e p r e s u m p t i o n a r i s i n g t h e r e from c o n c l u s i v e , and t o p r o v i d e , t h e r e f o r e , f o r t h e assessment and t a x a t i o n of [ c a t t l e ] t o the party i n possession i n t h e manner and form a s p r o v i d e d by t h e a c t i n q u e s t i o n . " N.W. 82 a t 731. Because t h e t a x i s b o t h a u t h o r i z e d and l e g a l , i n j u n c - tion w i l l not lie. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t p r o p e r l y r e f u s e d t o g r a n t a n i n j u n c t i o n on t h a t b a s i s . I n p a s s i n g , w e n o t e t h a t i n a p r e v i o u s y e a r , M-V E n t e r p r i s e s g a v e t h e c o u n t y a s s e s s o r ' s o f f i c e a l i s t of t h e i n d i v i d u a l s who owned t h e c a t t l e . The a s s e s s m e n t s i n t h a t y e a r a p p a r e n t l y were made t o t h e i n d i v i d u a l s and n o t t o M-V Enterprises. T h e r e i s c o n f l i c t i n g t e s t i m o n y a s t o whether t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n was p r o v i d e d i n 1971. The c o u n t y o f f i c i a l s claim t h a t the corporation did not furnish t h e information, s o t h e a s s e s s o r , a c t i n g i n a r e a s o n a b l e and l e g a l manner, a s s e s s e d t h e t a x a g a i n s t M-V ~ n t e r p r i s e s ,i n whose p o s s e s s i o n and c o n t r o l t h e c a t t l e w e r e . made t o t h e L. D. The a s s e s s m e n t was n o t S t e n s v a d C a t t l e Company, whose r e g i s t e r e d brand was worn by e a c h of t h e c a t t l e , even though it i s prima f a c i e e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e p e r s o n o r c o r p o r a t i o n , i n whose name a brand i s of r e c o r d , i s t h e owner of a l l a n i m a l s b e a r i n g t h e brand i n t h e p o s i t i o n and on t h e s p e c i e s s t a t e d i n t h e c e r t i f i c a t e of r e c o r d . now s e c t i o n 81-3-105 MCA. S e c t i o n 46-606, R.C.M. 1947, The a s s e s s o r , of c o u r s e , c o u l d n o t r e l y on t h e n u m e r i c a l b r a n d , which was n o t r e g i s t e r e d . N o b l i g a t i o n i s imposed o n t h e a s s e s s o r t o t r a c k down t h e o " t r u e " owner of t h e c a t t l e . 406, R.C.M. The o b l i g a t i o n of s e c t i o n 84- 1947 (Supp. 1 9 7 1 ) , t o a s s e s s t o t h e p e r s o n i n whose p o s s e s s i o n o r c o n t r o l t h e p r o p e r t y was, had been fulfilled. Having c r a c k e d t h e s h e l l , w e t u r n now t o t h e n u t o f t h e problem, d e t e r m i n a t i o n of whether Faunco, I n c . , t o pay t a x e s a s s e s s e d on t h e c a t t l e . i s obliged C e r t a i n s t a t u t e s which a r e d e t e r m i n a t i v e of t h i s i s s u e , have been o v e r l o o k e d . Those s t a t u t e s a r e s e c t i o n s 84-3807 and 8 4 - 3 8 0 8 ( a ) , R.C.M. 1947, now r e s p e c t i v e l y s e c t i o n s 15-16-401 MCA: and 15-16-402(1) "84-3807. Tax o p e r a t e s a s judgment - - n . or lie Every t a x h a s t h e e f f e c t o f a judgment a g a i n s t t h e p e r s o n , and e v e r y l i e n c r e a t e d - -i s t i t l e by t h h a s - f o r c e and e f f e c t - - e x e c u t i o n d u l y the of a n l e v i e d a g a i n s t a l l p e r s o n a l property - -e i n th from and p o s s e s s i o n - -e p e r s o n a s s e s s e d -- a f t e r of t h i s made. the date the --- a s s e s s m e n t - - . ." "84-3808. - - p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y - -on r e a l t y Tax on lien t a x due upon --separate assessment. ( a ) Every - - i l i e n --p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y -s-a p r i o r - -upon any o r a l l of su - -c h p r o p e r t y , which l i e n s h a l l have p r e c e d e n c e o v e r any o t h e r l i e n , c l a i m o r demand upon such p r o p e r t y , and e x c e p t a s h e r e i n a f t e r p r o v i d e d , e v e r y -- p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y is a l s o 5 l i e n t a x upon upon --l p r o p e r t y --t h e rea of t h e owner t h e r e o f , from and a f t e r 1 2 m. of t h e f i r s t Monday i n March i n each year." Thus, t h e t a x d u e on t h e p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y , t h e c a t t l e , i s a l i e n on t h a t p r o p e r t y , s e c t i o n 84-3807, R.C.M. 1947, and t h e t a x upon t h a t p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y i s a l i e n upon t h e r e a l p r o p e r t y o f t h e owner t h e r e o f , s e c t i o n 84-3808, R.C.M. 1947. Because t h e c a t t l e have l o n g s i n c e gone t o t h a t g r e a t roundup i n t h e s k y , t h e l i e n on t h e c a t t l e per - h a s evapse orated. I t has n o t evaporated a s a g a i n s t t h e r e a l property of t h e owners of t h e c a t t l e , however. I t d o e s n o t a p p e a r o f r e c o r d t h a t Faunco, I n c . , owner of any of t h e c a t t l e . was T h e r e f o r e , a t a x upon t h e c a t t l e would n o t o p e r a t e a s a l i e n on t h e r e a l p r o p e r t y o f Faunco, and Faunco i s n o t o b l i g a t e d t o pay t h e p e r s o n a l property taxes assessed against the c a t t l e . F a u n c o ' s demand t h a t t h e c o u n t y a c c e p t payment o f t h e t a x e s and p e n a l t i e s due, e x c l u s i v e o n l y of t h o s e a s s e s s e d a g a i n s t t h e c a t t l e , i s a p p r o p r i a t e l y made. n o t l o o k t o Faunco, I n c . , The c o u n t y may f o r payment o f t h e t a x e s a n d p e n a l t i e s d u e on t h e c a t t l e , b u t m u s t s e e k payment, u n d e r t h e t e r m s o f t h e s t a t u t e , from t h o s e who w e r e owners o f t h e cattle. To t h a t e x t e n t t h e judgment i s r e v e r s e d and t h e c o u n t y e n j o i n e d from t a k i n g t a x d e e d t o t h e r e a l p r o p e r t y owned now by Faunco, I n c . , upon i t s payment o f a l l moneys, e x c l u s i v e of t h e t a x e s on t h e c a t t l e , due t h e county. W e concur:

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.