Montana Attorney General Opinion 15-327

Opinion No. 327 Taxation-Delinquent Taxes--Certifi- cate· of Sale--Assessment Book- Real Property-Description. . HJ<}LD: To set fortb real property in the' assessment book or in a certificate of sale for . delinquent taxes as being in a tract which is de,,;cribed by metes nnd bounds, and comprising a cf'rtain nllmber of acres, witbout more, is not a sufficient compliance witb the Inw. Septemher 2, 11");{3. In your request for our opinion, you gn,'e it a" your opinion that to set forth real property in tbe assessment hook or in a certificate of sale for delin- quent taxes as being in II tract which is described by metes and bounds, and comprising a certain numher of acres, without more, is not a sufficient com- pliance with the law, and a'sk us to confirm, if we may, tbe judgment thus expressed by you. See-tion 2048, Revised Codes 1921, pro"ides as follows: "The assessor must prepare an as- sessment book with appropriate bead- ings, alphahetically arranged, unless othenvise directed by tbe state board of equalization, in which must be listed all property within the county, and in which must be specified in separate columns, under the appropriate bead: "1. • •• "2. I.Alnd,!by :township, 1"a nge, section, or fractional section; and wben such land is not a United States land divi- vision or subdivision, by metes and bounds, or other description sufficient to identify it, giving an estimate of the number of acres, not exceeding in each and every tract six bundred and forty acres, locality, and the improve- ments tbE'l"eon. "3. City and town lots, naming the city or town, and tbe number of tbe lot and block, according to tbe system of numbering in such city or town, and improvements tbereon." The statute is mandatory and sub- stantial compliance witb its prov·isions is essential. (Hauswirth v. Mueller, 25 Mont. 156; State ex reI. Hay Y. Alder- son, 49 Mont. 387; Tax Commission' Case, 68 Mont. 450.) The description in the assessment roll, in case of delin- quency, is the basis of and is neces- sarily followed in the certificate of sale and tax deed. Its purpose is tbree- fold: First, to advise the owner of the elaim that is made on him or bis prop- ert~·; second, to apprize tbe public, in tbe event tbe tax is not paid, of the par- ticular property on whicb it is a lien, and which will he sold; and, third, to enahle tbe purchaser to ohtain a suf- ficient COll\·eyance. If these objects are' to be attained, the description must be not only such as to inform the owner that tbe tax on his land is unpaid, but also tbat tbe purchaser may know or learn tbe preCise tract intended, and be able to estimate its actual value. Tbe person wbo will pay the taxes delin- quent for the least quantity of tbe land becomes the purchaser. (Armour v. Of- ficer, 8S N. W. 1058; Cordano v. Kelsey, 151 Pac. 391; 61 C. J. 710; 3 Cooley on Taxation, sec. 1175.) "A description wbich would suffice in an agreement to com'ey or in a deed may be bad in an assessment. In the first case the court might in- quire as to the intention of the par- ties, but in the other tbe owner has 110 part in tbe proceeding, which is bostile, and to every step in whicb he is objecting. The assessment is made witb a view to a possible sale, and the property should therefore be so described as to enable the owner to know what land is cbarged with tbe tax, and also to enable a possible pur- 224 OPINIONS OF THE ATTOR~EY GENERAL chaser to know what land ·is offered for sale. The bidder who will pay the tax for the smallest portion of the land will have his offer accepted. To decide this ma tter, there should be no uncertainty as to what land he is dealing with. Hence the description should be sufficient in Hself to iden· tify the land, • • *." "nller v. 'Wil- lia ms, 67 Pac. 788. The description in question, by rea- son of its uncertaintr. is not sufficient to identify the proper·ty intended to he assessed, and hence does not comply wHh the provisions of Section 204R supra. (City of Lewi~town ,'. Warr, 52 Mont. 353: Horsky v. l\icKennan. i'i3 Mont. 50: Armour y. Officer. supra: Palomares Land Co. v. Los Angeles County, 80 Pac. 931: Dane v. Glennon, 72 Ala. 160: Keyes v. ~tate, 117 Atl. 166: Millikan ,'. City of 1,aFayette, 20 N. E. 847; Wilson Y •• Tarron, 131 Pac. 12; Ferguson v. Gusdorf. 290 Pac. 214; 61 C. J. 718.)