[Download] "Gordon J. Sines and Betty J. Sines v." by Supreme Court of Idaho No. 12787 # Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Gordon J. Sines and Betty J. Sines v.
- Author : Supreme Court of Idaho No. 12787
- Release Date : January 04, 1979
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 59 KB
Description
This case is before this court for the second time. In the prior appeal, Sines v. Blaser, 98 Idaho 435, 566 P.2d 758 (1977), we addressed a procedural issue unrelated to this appeal. On this appeal the issue before the court is whether sufficient notice was given to defendants-appellants Albert E. and Ruth L. Blaser before Canyon County took certain parcels of their real property by tax deed. The facts relevant to this appeal are as follows: Defendants-appellants acquired the Canyon County property in question by deed dated March 30, 1967, in which the grantees named were Albert E. Blaser and Ruth L. Blaser, husband and wife. The Blasers failed to pay taxes on the real property for the years 1967, 1968, 1969 and 1970. In April 1970, the Canyon County Treasurer sent Albert E. Blaser an informal notice of delinquent taxes due. In August, 1970, formal notification of pending issue of tax deed was sent to Mr. Albert E. Blaser by certified mail. When the certified letter was returned unclaimed, a notice containing the name of Albert E. Blaser was published in the Idaho Free Press. On January 4, 1971, the County took the property by tax deed. Newspaper publication was also made prior to the time when the property was sold to plaintiffs-respondents Gordon and Betty Sines, husband and wife, and Tom Sines, at a tax sale on August 15, 1972. Record title was conveyed to the Sineses on August 6, 1973. The Sineses instituted this quiet title action in October, 1973, because the Blasers had filed a vendor's lien against the property. At trial, the Blasers argued that the passing of title at the tax sale was void because the County failed to give them notice as required by I.C. § 63-1134.[Footnote 1] According to the Blasers, the County Treasurer failed to exercise due diligence by resorting to notice by publication without any follow-up efforts to find and notify the Blasers personally after the single formal notice by certified mail was returned unclaimed. The Blasers also argued that notice was defective because no separate attempt was made to notify Ruth L. Blaser, the co-owner of the property. It was uncontradicted at trial that the Blasers have lived at the same address for over 25 years, owned many parcels of land in Canyon County, and were personally known to and had dealings with the County Treasurer throughout the entire period in question. Moreover, it was uncontested that no separate attempt was made to notify Ruth L. Blaser, the co-owner of the property.