New York Law Review

Tag: Property Description

  • Sainer v. County Treasurer of Warren County, 33 N.Y.2d 271 (1973): Sufficiency of Tax Deed Descriptions Using Area

    Sainer v. County Treasurer of Warren County, 33 N.Y.2d 271 (1973)

    A tax deed describing property with three boundaries and the area is sufficient if the fourth boundary can be mathematically and geographically determined without unreasonable or arbitrary results.

    Summary

    This case concerns the validity of tax deeds where the property description included only three boundaries and the area. Warren County sold a portion of Sainer’s land for unpaid taxes to the defendant, describing it as six-eighths of an acre bounded on the east by Lake George and on the north and south by specified lines. Sainer challenged the deeds, arguing the description was insufficient. The trial court agreed, but the Appellate Division reversed, finding the description adequate since the fourth boundary could be determined. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the description sufficient and rejecting the need for a “unitary parcel” rule, emphasizing the importance of efficient tax collection.

    Facts

    Sainer owned seven-eighths of an acre on Lake George. Warren County sold six-eighths of an acre of this parcel to the defendant at a tax sale for unpaid property taxes. The tax deeds described the parcel as bounded on the east by Lake George, and on the north and south by specified lines, but did not specify a western boundary. The defendant paid the taxes and made improvements on the property. Sainer sued to invalidate the tax deeds, claiming the property description was insufficient.

    Procedural History

    The trial court ruled in favor of Sainer, holding the tax deeds void due to the uncertain description. The Appellate Division reversed, upholding the validity of the deeds. Sainer appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether a tax deed describing a parcel of land with three boundaries and its area is void for uncertainty if the fourth boundary can be mathematically calculated.

    Holding

    Yes, because the lack of a specified fourth boundary does not invalidate the deed if it can be determined through mathematical calculation and surveying without leading to an unreasonable or arbitrary result.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals reasoned that the description was sufficient because the fourth boundary could be determined mathematically and through surveying. The court stated that the fixation of the fourth boundary line is “purely a mathematical and surveying problem, readily solvable.” The court dismissed concerns that the County Treasurer might act unreasonably in designating the boundary. The court emphasized that the primary concern of the statute is the collection of delinquent taxes and the marketability of the taxed parcels should not be unduly impaired. The court found no need for a “unitary” subparcel rule of construction, which might impede speedy tax sales. The Court referenced Godfrey, Enforcement of Delinquent Property Taxes in New York, 24 Albany L. Rev. 271, 282, n. 31, to support their argument that the bidding should relate not only to the amount of the delinquent taxes but to the portion of the taxed parcel which the bidder seeks to buy. The court stated: “Absent such a showing, the county treasurer had no duty to sell less than all of the taxed property. Nevertheless, when he found that he was able to satisfy the tax lien by selling less than the whole property, he was not only authorized but required by the statute, in reason, to accept such a bid.”

  • George v. Shultis, 24 N.Y.2d 240 (1969): Sufficiency of Tax Deed Description for Identification and Adverse Possession

    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.