Wigton v. Bedinger
Wigton v. Bedinger
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We will herein refer to the parties as they appeared in the trial court where plaintiffs in error were defendants and defendant in error was plaintiff.
The record shows that the following described property, situate in the County of Weld land State of Colo
Complaint in quiet title action was filed by plaintiff in the district court of Weld county on March 23, 1954. Upon petition, H. F. Wigton, John Ramsey Wigton, Chester M. Wigton, and Bessie Rebecca Housman, were made parties defendant in said action, and in their answer these defendants alleged that the notice issued by the treasurer of Weld county on October 19, 1953, was insufficient to comply with the requirements of the statute and that the deed issued thereunder is void, illegal, and of no force or effect. Judgment of the trial court was for plaintiff.
Defendants claim there was no compliance with the mandate of C.R.S. ’53, 137-10-28 in reference to the notice given, in that the notice did not provide for a time limit of not more than five months or at least three months before the time of issuance of the treasurer’s deed.
Plaintiffs contend the notice was sufficient- when C.R.S. ’53, 137-10-28 'and the amendment of 1951, C.R.S. ’53, 137-10-29 are construed together, and further that defendants never sought redemption of the property from said tax sale.
By the reply brief, a decree is sought in defendant’s favor declaring the tax deed void, conditioned upon their compliance with C.R.S. ’53, 137-11-1.
Prior to an amendment, chapter 227, S.L. 1937, page 1053, there was no statutory requirement for notice except in cases where the property was assessed for more than $100.00.
Instant deeds, or deeds without notice, were issued at any time after the expiration of three years from the date of Sale of land for taxes, in accordance with the provisions of C.R.S. ’53, 137-10-20.
Prior to the 1953 revision of the Colorado statutes, section 255, chapter 227, S.L. ’37, page 1053, contained the word “hereafter.” The section reads as follows:
“Before any purchaser or assignee of such purchaser of any land, town or city lot, or mining claim, hereafter [italics ours] sold for taxes, or special 'assessments due either to the state or to any county or incorporated town or city within the same, * * * he shall make request upon the county treasurer, who shall then comply with the following, to-wit:
“The county treasurer shall serve or cause to be served, by personal service or by registered mail, 'a written or printed, or partly written and partly printed, notice of such purchase on every person in actual possession or occupancy of such lands, lots or premises and also on the person in whose name the same was taxed or specially assessed, if upon diligent inquiry such person can be found in the county, or his residence without the county be known, and upon all persons having an inter
In C.R.S. ’53, 137-10-28, the word “hereafter” is omitted, but in any event 'the revision was not in effect on the date application was made by plaintiff for a deed, and the land was sold for 1931 taxes and tax certificate issued in 1932, prior to the 1937 amendment, now part of 137-10-28 supra.
It is obvious that our decision must be that the property was sold for taxes prior to the 1937 amendment of 137-10-28 supra; that the record shows the assessed valuation was less than $100.00, and that no notice was required to be given prior to the issuance of the tax deed.
For the above reasons the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- H. F. Wigton v. Mel C. Bedinger
- Status
- Published