Thomas v. Kolker

Henderson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This appeal is from an order of the Circuit Court No. 2 of Baltimore City dismissing, after hearing, a petition of the appellant to reopen a prior decree foreclosing all rights of redemption in property purchased at tax sale. About twenty years ago the appellant purchased three vacant lots in the interior of the 2800 block of Erdman Avenue, known as lots 46, 47 and 48. The only access to these lots is by means of two parallel ten-foot alleys running westerly from Clarence Avenue, and a connecting alley.

Lot 46, as shown by a city plat prepared in 1940, has an irregular frontage of about 104 feet on the northernmost alley, the other lots each have a frontage of about 28 feet. Immediately after the purchase, the appellant erected a one-story concrete building partitioned down the center, each half being divided into six individual spaces used for garage purposes. On April 8, 1943, the appellant being in arrears in the payment of taxes for a period of four years, the City sold the three lots to the appellee at tax sale. The appellant had notice of the sale and promptly redeemed lot 48, being under the erroneous impression that her garage building was located entirely on that lot.

She did not redeem lots 46 and 47. On May 26, 1944, the appellee hied his bill of complaint to foreclose all rights of redemption, which was duly served on the appellant, but she did not answer. On December 4, 1944, a hnal decree was entered. In 1945 the City, in the course of a general ⁴⁷⁴ reassessment of that district, determined that six of the garages were located on lot 47 and made appropriate entries on the assessment records for the taxable year 1946.

In May, 1946 the purchaser consulted counsel as to whether one-half of the garage building containing six garages, was in fact located upon lot 47. On August 1, 1946 he gave the appellee .notice to cease collecting rent for those garages. On September 2, 1947, the appellant filed a petition to reopen the prior decree on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction and fraud. The claim of lack of jurisdiction is based upon the fact that the advertisements of sale and the City Collector’s Tax Roll for 1943 listed lots 46 and 47 as “unimproved”, and lot 48 as “improved”.

Lot 47 was assessed at $220 — lot 48 at $2,400 — . We need not consider whether this inaccuracy in the advertisement and assessment rolls would have been a fatal objection under the law as it stood prior to 1941. Cf. Gill v. Somer, 191 Md. 204 , 60 A. 2d 683 ; Diener v. Wheatley, 191 Md. 690 , 62 A. 2d 783 and Liberty Realty, Inc., v. Kenneth Co., 194 Md. 148 , 69 A. 2d 784 .

In the latter case we said that the Collector is not required to search the land records, but that it is the duty of the owner to see that the tax assessment records are correct. By Chapter 540 of the Acts of 1941, (modified in some respects by Chapter 761, Acts of 1943), a new procedure quasi in rem was established, analogous to a mortgage foreclosure. Gathwright v. Baltimore, 181 Md. 362 , 30 A. 2d 252 , 145 A. L. R. 590. Where that procedure is followed, defects in the prior proceedings are wholly immaterial.

Shapiro v. National Color Printing Co., 191 Md. 194 , 60 A. 2d 679 ; Oppenheimer v. Micbar Co., 192 Md. 192 , 63 A. 2d 765 . Section 90M, Article 81 of the Code (1947 Supp.), provides: “(Decree of Court Conclusive.) No application shall be thereafter entertained to reopen any final decree * * * under the provisions of this sub-title except on the ground of lack of jurisdiction or fraud in the conduct of the proceedings to foreclose. * * *”. Section 89G, Article 81, Code (1947 Supp.), provides: “(Con ⁴⁷⁵ struction of Sections.) The provisions of the following sections of