George v. Shultis, 24 N.Y.2d 240 (1969)

A tax deed with an imperfect property description is valid if the land can be identified with reasonable certainty, and such a deed can form the basis for a claim of adverse possession if the claimant’s use of the land is consistent with ownership under a written instrument.

Summary

This case addresses the validity of a tax deed with errors in the property description and whether it can serve as a basis for adverse possession. The Court of Appeals held that even with inaccuracies, the tax deed was sufficient because the property could be identified with reasonable certainty due to its unique location bounded by town lines. Furthermore, the court found that the tax deed could support a claim of adverse possession because the purchaser demonstrated use of the land consistent with ownership under a written instrument, despite imperfections in the deed’s description.

Facts

In 1931, Defendant George purchased tax liens on a property based on a 1930 assessment. In 1933, he received a tax deed from the Ulster County Treasurer. The assessment contained errors in the compass directions of boundary lines and the quantity of land. The property was wild forest land in the Town of Olive, uniquely bounded on the west by the Town of Denning and touching the Town of Shandaken. Plaintiff’s predecessors had not paid taxes on the land after 1929, and in 1963, Plaintiff bought their interests. Defendant Shultis was a contract purchaser from George.

Procedural History

The trial court (Special Term) upheld the tax deed’s validity, finding the land identifiable. The Appellate Division reversed, deeming the description patently erroneous. The Court of Appeals then reviewed the Appellate Division’s decision.

Issue(s)

1. Whether a tax assessment with errors in the property description is valid if the property can be identified and located with reasonable certainty.
2. Whether a tax deed with an imperfect description can serve as a valid written instrument for a claim of adverse possession.

Holding

1. Yes, because Real Property Tax Law § 504(4) states that errors do not invalidate enforcement if the parcel can be identified with reasonable certainty.
2. Yes, because the tax deed provides a written instrument upon which the claimant relied for possession, and the claimant’s use of the land was consistent with ownership under that instrument.

Court’s Reasoning

The court reasoned that the statute (Real Property Tax Law § 504, subd. 4) provides that an error or omission “shall not prevent” the enforcement of the tax “if the parcel can be identified and located with reasonable certainty.” The court emphasized that the location of the land, bounded by specific town lines, made it uniquely identifiable, despite errors in compass directions and acreage. The court noted that the description had been used since 1921, and the prior owner had paid taxes based on this assessment, suggesting they knew which property was being assessed. The court contrasted older cases with a stricter view of assessment roll descriptions with the modern view expressed in McCoun v. Pierpont, which favors a common-sense approach. Quoting Judge Cardozo, the court stated, “The verdict of common sense in such a situation is the verdict also of the law. That verdict, we think, must be that misconception is impossible”. Regarding adverse possession, the court noted that Defendant George used the land for recreation, hunting, and timber, consistent with ownership. The court cited Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law § 512(3), stating that land is possessed where, not enclosed, “it has been used for the supply of fuel or of fencing timber, either for the purposes of husbandry or for the ordinary use of the occupant.” The court emphasized that the tax deed, though imperfect, was a “written instrument” that George relied upon, satisfying the statutory requirements for adverse possession, differentiating this case from a claim for possession without such an instrument.