Bill Fennelly, Scott County Treasurer v. A-1 Machine & Tool Co.

Summary

The Iowa Supreme Court considers whether a county treasurer's action to collect delinquent property taxes is subject to the statute of limitations and whether a tax sale certificate is a condition precedent to such an action. The court holds that the action is not barred by the statute of limitations and that a tax sale certificate was not required for the machinery-and-equipment tax claims. The judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.

Holdings

1. The common-law nullum tempus doctrine applies because the county's collection of delinquent property taxes is a public or governmental activity that benefits Iowa's public-school system. Accordingly, the general statute of limitations does not bar the Treasurer's claims.
2. A county treasurer may maintain an action to collect delinquent taxes on a taxable parcel without first obtaining a tax sale certificate when the parcel does not include land.
3. A county treasurer may not obtain personal judgments for taxes levied before April 1, 1992, the effective date of the statutory personal-judgment remedy.
4. A-1's equitable-estoppel defense fails as a matter of law because the assessor's alleged failure to communicate does not constitute a false representation or concealment of material facts or an exceptional circumstance warranting estoppel against the government.
5. A-1 was not entitled to appellate attorney fees, and its request for trial attorney fees was untimely because it was raised for the first time on appeal.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the statute of limitations barred the county treasurer's action to collect delinquent property taxes on behalf of Scott County.
2. Whether a tax sale certificate was a condition precedent to an action for a personal judgment for delinquent taxes on a taxable parcel consisting of machinery and equipment rather than land.
3. Whether the personal-judgment remedy for property taxes could apply to taxes levied before April 1, 1992, the effective date of the statutory amendment creating that remedy.
4. Whether A-1's equitable-estoppel defense was legally available based on the assessor's alleged failure to communicate with A-1.
5. Whether A-1 was entitled to common-law attorney fees.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded