Catherine E.W. Hansen Trust v. Michael Ward; Theodora Tarbet; Timshel Tarbet; Tarbet Schrier LLC; Dale Tarbet; Estate of Dale Tarbet

Summary

The Montana Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment declaring a tax deed void because the purchaser failed to obtain the mandatory property title guarantee and provide the required notice to interested parties. The Court also upheld the district court’s calculation of the tax-lien redemption amount, including the deposited taxes, interest, and additional taxes paid during litigation, while rejecting additional expenses not required by law. The Court declined to consider the purchaser’s constitutional challenge to the governing statute because it was raised for the first time after judgment.

Holdings

1. Under §§ 15-18-212(1)(b) and -212(4)(a), MCA, a tax-lien purchaser must obtain a qualifying property title guarantee and provide the required certified-mail notice to each nonutility party listed on that guarantee. Failure to comply with these mandatory requirements renders the resulting tax deed void.
2. When a tax deed is declared void, the purchaser is entitled to recover the taxes, interest, penalties, and legally required costs that would have accrued in a regular redemption proceeding, while the true owner must receive the amount deposited with the court, applicable interest, and additional taxes paid during the litigation. Costs not required by law, including the requested insurance, trust-administration, and attorney fees, need not be awarded.
3. The Court declined to review Hansen Trust's constitutional challenge because it was raised for the first time in a post-judgment motion and therefore was not preserved for appeal.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the District Court properly granted summary judgment and declared the tax deed void because Hansen Trust failed to obtain a property title guarantee and provide the statutory notice.
2. Whether the District Court properly determined the amount payable to Hansen Trust for redemption of its tax lien, including interest, additional taxes, and requested costs.
3. Whether the District Court properly denied Hansen Trust's post-judgment motions, including its motion to correct the interest calculation and its newly raised constitutional challenge.

Disposition

affirmed