Montana Attorney General Opinion 16-293

Opinion No. 293. Taxation-Tax Deed, Notice of Appli- cation For--Counties-Mines and Mining. HELD: The county may not pub- lish a notice of application for tax deed covering a number of discon- nected or non-contiguous mineral re- servations belonging to the same own- er; notice must be given as to each separate tract. Mr. A. D. Baker County Attorney Ryegate, Montana May 27, 1936. You inquire as to whether or not one notice of application for a tax deed can cover a number of tracts in the county wh<;!re same are discon- nected or non-contiguous and belong to the same owner, and, particularly, you inquire as to mineral reservations. I do not think that the separate tracts can be included in one notice. The Supreme Court has held in a number of ca~es that disconnected tracts may not be sold for taxes en masse. (Lindeman v. Pinson et aI., 54 Mont. 466; Horsky v. McKennan et aI., 53 Mont. 50.) The present stat- ute in relation to notice is contained in Section 2209, R. C. M. 1921, as amended by Chapter 190 of the Laws of 1933. The notice not only re- quires the date when the applicant will apply for a tax deed but the date of the tax sale, the amount of the property sold, the amount for which it was sold, the amount due and the time when the right of redemption will expire or when lhe proper pur- chaser will apply for a tax deed. A full compliance with the statute in re- lation to notice is necessary for the county as well as private individuals. (Tilden v. Chouteau County, 85 Mont. 398.) The notice must be given as provided for in the statute. (Small v. Hull et aI., 96 Mont. 525.) There appears to be no way in which the county can comply with the statute except by giving notice as to each separate tract.