1. DEEDS — Tax — Requirement — County Treasurer — Diligent Inquiry — Address — Record Title Holder — Not Extend — Search of Files — Miscellaneous Correspondence. Although in regard to issuance of tax deed, there is a statutory requirement that county treasurer make a "diligent inquiry" to ascertain a proper address of the record title holder, such requirement of diligent inquiry does not extend to a search of the treasurer's files for miscellaneous correspondence between the treasurer and an individual in matters unrelated to the subject property.
Opinion by JUDGE PIERCE.
This is an appeal from a judgment quieting title to real property in the defendants. Defendants claimed title to the property by virtue of a tax deed issued in August of 1971. The plaintiff is the executor of an estate which was the record owner of the property prior to the issuance of the tax deed. Plaintiff argues that the tax deed is invalid on the grounds that the county treasurer failed to make "diligent inquiry" as to the proper address of the record owner for the mailing of notice of defendants' application for the issuance of a tax deed.
The evidence in the record indicates that the property was initially sold to the defendants at a tax sale in December of 1964. The property was, at that time, assessed to the W. H. Siddoway Estate, in care of Ralph Siddoway, Box 327, Vernal, Utah. The record further indicates that tax notices continued to be sent to that address and that the notice of request by defendants for a tax deed was sent by certified mail to that address after a title search at the local abstract office. However, the post office box belonging to Ralph Siddoway was changed in 1965 from Box 327 to Box 387. The Notice of Request for Tax Deed was returned to the county treasurer bearing a post office stamp stating that the item was unclaimed. The county treasurer testified that, upon return of the notice, the records in the county assessor's office from which the address had been obtained, were rechecked, but that no further steps were taken to determine whether the address was correct.
It is undisputed that the plaintiff was one who was entitled to receive notice from the county treasurer under the provisions of 1965 Perm. Supp., C.R.S. 1963, 137-11-28(1)(b). However, plaintiff argues that the county treasurer did not fulfill the requirement of that statute of making "diligent inquiry" to ascertain a proper address of the plaintiff. Defendant argues, and the trial court found, that the actions of the county treasurer were sufficient to meet the requirements of the statute.
While we agree with plaintiff that a tax deed is invalid in the absence of full compliance of the statutory requirements relating to the issuance of the deed, Bald Eagle Mining Refining Co. v. Brunton, 165 Colo. 28, 437 P.2d 59; Siler v. Investment Securities Co., 125 Colo. 438, 244 P.2d 877, the issue before us is whether or not the county treasurer has complied with the statutory requirements sufficiently to validate the tax deed. We conclude that the treasurer complied with the statute and affirm the trial court.
Plaintiff relies in part upon statements in the Bald Eagle case to the effect that "blind reliance on erroneous assessor's rolls when the correct address was easily available to the treasurer does not satisfy the diligence requirements of the statute . . . . " (emphasis added) However, the court in that case expressly stated that the correct address of the record owner could have been obtained by checking other records in the assessor's office itself, or in the office of the clerk and recorder. In this case, there was no showing that a search of similar records would have revealed the correct address.
Instead, the evidence indicates that at the time of the mailing of the notice to the plaintiff, the records relating to this particular tract showed only the original post office box number.
[1] However, plaintiff argues that the treasurer had access to the correct address from correspondence between the treasurer and the plaintiff in a matter unrelated to either the subject property or the W. H. Siddoway Estate, and should have checked that correspondence for the proper address. We conclude that the requirement of diligent inquiry does not extend to a search of the treasurer's files for miscellaneous correspondence between the treasurer and an individual in matters unrelated to the subject property. This is particularly true where the record owner is an estate and the correspondence is with the executor as an individual and not in his fiduciary capacity in connection with matters unrelated to the estate.
[2] Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in basing its decision, in part, upon a finding that the plaintiff had a duty to advise the county assessor's office of his change of an address and that he had failed to meet that duty. While we might agree with the plaintiff that the statute does not impose such a duty upon the record owner, an error in this regard would have no effect upon the proper outcome of this case. The statute imposes a duty of diligent inquiry upon the county treasurer, and it is his conduct which is in issue here, not the conduct of the plaintiff. Thus, any failure on the part of the plaintiff in this regard is irrelevant.
Judgment affirmed.
JUDGE COYTE and JUDGE SMITH concur.