Miller v. McKenna

Good Law
1944 Cal. LEXIS 200·23 Cal. 2d 774·147 P.2d 531
Supreme Court of CaliforniaMarch 20, 1944L. A. 18157California14,581 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Shenk, J.

The plaintiff sued to quiet title to 103 lots in the city of Los Angeles. His title is based on a sheriff’s deed executed in pursuance of a mortgage foreclosure judg *777 ment and sale. The defendants’ claims of title depend upon the validity of certain tax deeds. The plaintiff recovered judgment quieting his title to all but ten of the lots. He appealed from that portion of the judgment quieting in the defendants the title to those ten lots.

Nine of the ten lots involved on the appeal were sold to the state in 1912 for delinquent 1911 taxes. In 1917 they were sold by the state at public sale to the highest bidders. The tenth lot was sold to the state in 1918 for delinquent 1917 taxes, and in 1923 was sold by the state.

The plaintiff claimed through a mortgage executed in 1915 and a sheriff’s deed on foreclosure executed and recorded in 1937. The mortgage contained a waiver of the statute of limitations, and the validity of the mortgage and foreclosure was decreed in Dexter v. Pierson, 214 Cal. 247 [ 4 P.2d 932 ], and Busing v. Pierson, 1 Cal.2d 495 [ 36 P.2d 116 ].

By findings and judgment dated March 20, 1941, the trial court found and concluded that the publications of the…

Dissenting Opinion

Traynor, J.

The majority opinion fails to specify any statutory requirement that the notices of sale did not meet. It states that the trial court found the notices of sale fatally defective because they omitted the word “penalties” in stating the amount due. Actually, however, there is no finding by the trial court as to why the notices were invalid or in what manner they departed from the statutes then in effect.

If any irregularity exists it is essential that it be identified. If there was no departure from the statutory requirements the tax deeds are valid; if there was, it is necessary to determine whether it was of a kind that could be remedied under the curative act of 1943. The statutes governing the publication of the delinquent lists are sections 3764 and 3765 of the Political Code.

The Requirements of Section 3764 Were Fully Met.

Section 3764 as it read in 1912 and 1918, when the lists were published, provided that at certain prescribed times the *786 tax collector “must publish the delinquent list, which must contain the names of the persons and a description of the property delinquent, and the amount of taxes, penalties, and costs due, opposite each name and description.” The…

Opinion

The plaintiff sued to quiet title to 103 lots in the city of Los Angeles. His title is based on a sheriff's deed executed in pursuance of a mortgage foreclosure judgment and sale. The defendants' claims of title depend upon the validity of certain tax deeds. The plaintiff recovered judgment quieting his title to all but ten of the lots. He appealed from that portion of the judgment quieting in the defendants the title to those ten lots.

Nine of the ten lots involved on the appeal were sold to the state in 1912 for delinquent 1911 taxes. In 1917 they were sold by the state at public sale to the highest bidders. The tenth lot was sold to the state in 1918 for delinquent 1917 taxes, and in 1923 was sold by the state.

The plaintiff claimed through a mortgage executed in 1915 and a sheriff's deed on foreclosure executed and recorded in 1937. The mortgage contained a waiver of the statute of limitations, and the validity of the mortgage and foreclosure was decreed in Dexter v. Pierson, 214 Cal. 247 [ 4 P.2d 932 ], and Busing v. Pierson, 1 Cal.2d 495 [ 36 P.2d 116 ].

By findings and judgment dated March 20, 1941, the trial court found and concluded that the publications of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.