Liberty Realty, Inc. v. Kenneth Co.

Henderson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This appeal from a decree for specific performance of a contract for the sale of certain parcels of real estate ¹⁵¹ on Frederick Road and on Stonecroft Road in Baltimore City, raises questions as to the validity of the titles obtained under tax sales. The vendor, the appellee, obtained title froip one Anna Gresser, who in turn obtained title from the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, who purchased the properties at sales by the Collector for non-payment of taxes in 1935 and 1939, respectively. As to the first sale, it appears that the Collector’s notice was served on George W. Rebhan, the President of the Stonecroft Corporation, the owner of the properties, who acquired them by deed in 1931.

In the assessment rolls, these properties were erroneously assessed to the Ellersleigh Company, a defunct corporation which had never held title. The appellant contends that the notice should have been given to the person or corporation last assessed. There is no merit in this contention. The statute, section 56, Charter and Public Local Laws of Baltimore City (1938 Ed.) provides that the Collector, before advertising, shall “give to the person or persons so in arrears or to one of them, if more than one, or leave at his or her or their residence, or last known residence of one of them, and if no such residence be known, there shall be left upon the premises so to be sold for taxes, a statement of his or her or their indebtedness, and not less than thirty days’ notice of his (said Collector’s) "intention, if the bill is not paid, to enforce the payment thereof by distraint or execution.” “The object of such statutory provisions is to give the owner of the property either actual or constructive notice of the taxes due, and that his property will be sold unless the amount thereof is paid.” Amos v. Abromaitis, 122 Md. 256, 262 , 89 A. 497, 499 .

In that case a notice served upon a tenant was held insufficient. The owner, to whom the property was assessed and the bills made out, was dead, and there was no posting of the property. Cf. Winter v. O’Neill, 155 Md. 624, 629 , 142 A. 263 .

In the case at bar the owner received notice. Indeed, it is shown that the Stonecroft Corporation appeared and paid the taxes due on some of the properties included in ¹⁵² the notice, but did not then or subsequently raise any objection to the sale of the properties here involved. It has been held that a Collector is not required to search the land records to determine the title of the person to whom the property is assessed. Cooper v. Holmes, 71 Md. 20, 30 , 17 A. 711 .

Thus, notice to the latter may be sufficient, particularly where the inaccuracy in the assessment rolls is due to the failure of a transferee to see that the records are correct. Mylander v. Baltimore, 166 Md. 658, 662 , 172 A. 234 . If, however, notice is actually given to the owner, it would be idle to require notice to a person having no actual interest in the property. It is the owner who has the right to redeem, and to whom the balance of the purchase money, over and above taxes, is payable.

Sections 62, and 63, City Charter (1938 Ed.). The appellant further contends that the notice was insufficient because it did not follow the language of the statute, “to enforce the payment thereof by distraint or execution,” but warned that “unless charges are paid within 30 days from this date, the property will be advertised and sold to satisfy the indebtedness”. There is no magic in the words “distraint or execution”. The notice clearly indicated the Collector’s intention to enforce payment by sale in the manner prescribed by law.

McMahon v. Crean, 109 Md. 652, 667 , 71 A. 995 . Cf. Gill v. Sommer, 191 Md. 204, 208 , 60 A. 2d 683, 684 . The notice was in substantial compliance with the statute,' and this is all that is required.

Section 65, City Charter (1938 Ed.); Pendergast v. Young, 188 Md. 411, 416 , 53 A. 2d 11 . For the same reason, use of the word “distress”, instead of “distraint”, in the notice as to the properties on Stonecroft Road, is not material. The sale was made on February 7, 1935, and the report of sale was filed on