Bullard v. Hardisty

Horney, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This appeal involves a contest over a lot or parcel of land in the City of Rockville sold to two different purchasers at separate tax sales. It was stipulated that the property in question was sold to Walter R. Hardisty (Hardisty or first purchaser) on June 13, 1935, at and for the sum of $83.26 by the Director of Finance of Montgomery County (Director of Finance) at the sale thereof for the 1954 delinquent state, county and city taxes. Subsequently Hardisty paid the 1955 state and county taxes, but neglected to pay the 1955 city taxes.

On June 11, 1956, the same property was sold to Robert E. Bullard (Bullard or second purchaser), at and for the sum of $150 by the Director of Finance at a sale thereof for the 1955 unpaid city taxes. The 1956 state and county taxes were paid by Hardisty and the 1956 city taxes were paid by Bullard. On June 12, 1957, the first purchaser filed suit to foreclose the rights of redemption against the record owners of the property. On June 27, 1957, the second purchaser filed a petition in the foreclosure proceeding to redeem, reciting his interest as the holder of the 1956 (city) 1 tax sale certificate issued by the Director of Finance.

On July 8, 1957, the first purchaser redeemed the property from the 1956 (city) tax sale by paying the sum of $103.87 to the Director of Finance. At that time, the second purchaser had not filed, nor did he subsequently file, suit to foreclose the rights of redemption. On July 11, 1957, the first purchaser filed an answer to the second purchaser’s petition to redeem (filed June 27, 1957), praying for the dismissal of the petition to redeem since the second purchaser no longer had any interest in the property. On January 10, 1958, after a hearing, the Circuit Court for Montgomery County dismissed the petition to redeem.

The second purchaser appealed. ⁴⁹² The first purchaser, relying on the provisions of Code (1957), Art. 81, § 92, contends that since he is “[t]he owner or other person having an estate or interest in the property sold” to the second purchaser at the 1956 (city) tax sale, he had a perfect right to redeem the property, as he had done, before “the right of redemption * * * [had] been finally foreclosed” under the second certificate of sale issued by the Director of Finance. On the other hand, the second purchaser contends that the first purchaser’s bill to foreclose the rights of redemption of the owners of the property by virtue of the 1955 (county) tax sale was an irrevocable offer to those interested to redeem the property, which offer had been accepted by the second purchaser’s petition to redeem. He argued that once the first purchaser had filed his bill to foreclose the rights of redemption under the 1955 (county) tax sale, he, the first purchaser, could not himself come in and redeem the property from the 1956 (city) tax sale. Although both parties posed other questions, the decisive issue as we see it is whether the Director of Finance had authority to make the second sale before the time for instituting foreclosure proceedings under the first sale had expired, or, if such proceedings had been commenced in due time before they had been either concluded or abandoned.

In the event of such delay as to indicate abandonment, the collector could intervene in the proceedings for the purpose of having them concluded. Clearly, however, the Director of Finance did not have authority to conduct the second sale at the time it was held in the present case. Section 72 of Article 81 provides that the “collector” 2 shall sell, at the time prescribed by local law, all property upon which taxes are in arrears. 3 This is so because Section 71 of