King v. Rosebud County

No. 80-365
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

LORETTA E. KING, personal representative
of the Estate of ROY M. KING, deceased;
and LORETTA E. KING et al.,
Plaintiffs and Appellants,

ROSEBUD COUNTY, a local government unit
in the State of Montana,
Defendant and Respondent.

Appeal from: District Court of the Sixteenth Judicial District,
In and for the County of Rosebud.
Honorable Alfred B. Coate, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellants:
Olsen, Christensen and Gannett, Billings, Montana
Paul G. Olsen argued, Billings, Montana
For Respondent:
John S. forsythe, County Attorney, Forsyth, Montana
Fillner and Pitet, Billings, Montana
Russell K. Fillner argued, Billings, Montana

Submitted: April 23, 1981
Decided: July 22, 1981
Filed: JOL2 2 1981

Clerk
Mr. J u s t i c e Fred J . Weber d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t .

Appellants/plaintiffs a r e the personal representative

and widow of Roy M. King, and t h e ex-wife of Roy M. King.

They b r o u g h t t h i s a c t i o n i n Rosebud County, b e f o r e t h e

Honorable A l f r e d B. Coate, seeking t o q u i e t t i t l e , i n favor

of themselves and t h e e s t a t e , t o a r o y a l t y i n t e r e s t of 6 . 2 5

p e r c e n t i n a l l o i l , g a s and m i n e r a l s r e c o v e r a b l e from c e r t a i n

t r a c t s of l a n d .

Nonjury t r i a l was h e l d on March 11, 1 9 8 0 . The p l a i n t i f f s

now a p p e a l from t h e judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i n f a v o r

of t h e County.

The f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s a r e p r e s e n t e d f o r review:

1. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r i n c o n c l u d i n g t h a t t h e

County took v a l i d t i t l e t o t h e l a n d s a s a r e s u l t of t a x s a l e

proceedings?

2. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r i n c o n c l u d i n g t h a t t h e

p l a i n t i f f s ' a c t i o n i s b a r r e d by d o c t r i n e s of e s t o p p e l ,

l a c h e s , o r by a s s e r t e d s t a t u t e s of l i m i t a t i o n ?

W h o l d t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i d err on b o t h i s s u e s , and
e

r e v e r s e t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s judgment.

FACTS :

T h i s a c t i o n c o n c e r n s t i t l e t o r o y a l t y i n t e r e s t s i n two

t r a c t s of l a n d , a "King" t r a c t and a " S t i l l w e l l " t r a c t .

Both were purchased by Roy M. King from t h e County a f t e r

t h e County had t a k e n t a x t i t l e t o b o t h . Two o t h e r t r a c t s of

l a n d w i l l a l s o be mentioned, a " B e n t l e y " t r a c t and a "LaFurge"

tract. King bought t h o s e p a r c e l s a t a b o u t t h e same t i m e and

i n a s i m i l a r manner. The p a r t i e s r e l y f o r a u t h o r i t y upon

t h e c o n d u c t and outcome of l i t i g a t i o n o v e r t h e B e n t l e y and

LaFurge l a n d s .

Roy King, A l b e r t S t i l l w e l l , May B e n t l e y and W i l l i a m
LaFurge e a c h owned c e r t a i n s e p a r a t e l a n d s i n Rosebud County.
~ l d l f a u l t e d on payment of t a x e s .
e The County purchased a l l

of t h e t r a c t s a t t a x s a l e s h e l d i n t h e l a t e 1 9 3 0 ' s and

1940's. The p r o c e d u r e f o l l o w e d by t h e County i n i s s u i n g t a x
d e e d s t o i t s e l f forms t h e s u b s t a n c e of t h i s a p p e a l , and w i l l

be d e s c r i b e d l a t e r .

A l b e r t S t i l l w e l l d i e d on May 2 4 , 1937, i n P e n n s y l v a n i a ,

b e f o r e any of t h e e v e n t s d e s c r i b e d h e r e o c c u r r e d . H i s widow

served a s e x e c u t r i x of t h e S t i l l w e l l e s t a t e . The p l a i n t i f f s

have s u b m i t t e d e v i d e n c e of t h e S t i l l w e l l p r o b a t e p r o c e e d i n g s

h e l d i n P e n n s y l v a n i a , which t h e County c i t e s i n s u p p o r t of

i t s argument t h a t S t i l l w e l l and h i s h e i r s l o n g ago waived o r

abandoned any c l a i m which t h e y m i g h t have had t o t h e r o y a l t y

i n t e r e s t i n t h e S t i l l w e l l t r a c t , s o t h a t King, who took h i s

c l a i m e d i n t e r e s t i n t h e S t i l l w e l l t r a c t from S t i l l w e l l ' s

h e i r s , must be h e l d t o have a c q u i r e d no i n t e r e s t i n r o y a l t i e s

from t h e S t i l l w e l l s .

The County took t a x t i t l e t o t h e King t r a c t on September

1, 1939, t o t h e S t i l l w e l l t r a c t on J a n u a r y 1 5 , 1944, and t o

t h e B e n t l e y t r a c t p r o b a b l y some t i m e i n t h e e a r l y 1 9 4 0 ' s .

Roy King l a t e r purchased from t h e County a l l of t h e

tracts. H e was i s s u e d a q u i t c l a i m deed by t h e County t o t h e

S t i l l w e l l t r a c t on March 7, 1944. King r e c e i v e d a q u i t c l a i m

deed t o h i s own former t r a c t on September 2 1 , 1944. He also

r e c e i v e d q u i t c l a i m d e e d s f o r t h e B e n t l e y and LaFurge t r a c t s .

Each of t h e q u i t c l a i m d e e d s i s s u e d t o King c o n t a i n e d t h e

C o u n t y ' s r e s e r v a t i o n of a r o y a l t y i n t e r e s t of 6.25 p e r c e n t

of a l l o i l , g a s and m i n e r a l s r e c o v e r e d and saved from t h e

lands.

I n order t o conclusively e s t a b l i s h h i s t i t l e t o the

t r a c t s , King f i l e d a n a c t i o n i n Rosebud County i n 1947 t o

q u i e t t i t l e t o a l l o f t h e t r a c t s and t o o t h e r l a n d s which h e
had p u r c h a s e d . Named a s d e f e n d a n t s , among o t h e r s , were

A l b e r t S t i l l w e l l , May B e n t l e y , Rosebud County and William

LaFurge. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t f i l e f o r t h e q u i e t t i t l e a c t i o n

was i n t r o d u c e d i n t o e v i d e n c e . ( C i v i l Cause No. 5475, i n t h e

S i x t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Rosebud County.)

Judgment by d e f a u l t was e n t e r e d a g a i n s t a l l d e f e n d a n t s

on August 31, 1948, t h e c o u r t d e c r e e i n g t h a t f u l l and complete

t i t l e t o t h e King, S t i l l w e l l , B e n t l e y and LaFurge t r a c t s

was q u i e t e d i n King. N mention was made i n t h e d e c r e e of
o

t h e County ' s r e s e r v a t i o n s .

The p a r t i e s a g r e e t h a t t h e County was n o t p r o p e r l y

s e r v e d i n t h e 1947 a c t i o n . Because t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i d

n o t o b t a i n j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e County, t h e County i s n o t

now bound by t h e d e f a u l t d e c r e e e n t e r e d a g a i n s t i t .

T h a t p a r t of t h e d e c r e e which q u i e t e d t i t l e t o t h e

B e n t l e y t r a c t i n f a v o r of King was l a t e r found v o i d a s

a g a i n s t May B e n t l e y by t h e Ninth C i r c u i t C o u r t of Appeals.

B e n t l e y v . Rosebud County, Montana ( 1 9 5 6 ) , 230 F.2d 1, c e r t .

den., 351 U.S. 984, 76 S.Ct. 1051, 100 L.Ed. 1498. The

p l a i n t i f f s r e l y on t h e r a t i o n a l e of t h a t f e d e r a l d e c i s i o n t o

s u p p o r t t h e i r c l a i m t h a t t h e county t r e a s u r e r d i d n o t have

j u r i s d i c t i o n t o i s s u e t h e t a x deeds t o t h e t r a c t s involved

h e r e , c l a i m i n g t h a t t h e d e e d s a r e v o i d and t h e C o u n t y ' s sub-

sequent reservations i n v a l i d .

PERTINENT HISTORY O THE BENTLEY
F & LAFURGE TRACTS

O i l was d i s c o v e r e d on t h e B e n t l e y t r a c t , p r o b a b l y i n

t h e l a t e 1940's o r e a r l y 1950's. May B e n t l e y , a s a r e s i d e n t

of Wisconsin, b r o u g h t a n a c t i o n i n f e d e r a l d i s t r i c t c o u r t t o

q u i e t t i t l e t o h e r l a n d s and r o y a l t y i n t e r e s t s .

I n B e n t l e y v . Rosebud County, Montana, s u p r a , t h e ~ i n t h

C i r c u i t C o u r t of Appeals r e v e r s e d t h e lower c o u r t , and h e l d

t h e t a x s a l e by which t h e County took t i t l e t o t h e B e n t l e y
t r a c t had been f a t a l l y d e f e c t i v e , r e n d e r i n g t h e t a x deed

void.

R e l y i n g on t h e c a s e of P e r r y v . Maves ( 1 9 5 1 ) , 125 Mont.

215, 233 P.2d 820, t h e n i n t h c i r c u i t c o u r t h e l d t h a t a

county t r e a s u r e r ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n t o i s s u e t a x deeds r e s t s

s o l e l y upon t h e a f f i d a v i t s of s e r v i c e which a r e r e q u i r e d by

s t a t u t e t o be f i l e d w i t h him; and, i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e s u f f i -

c i e n c y of t a x t i t l e p r o c e e d i n g s , t h e r e c o r d b e f o r e t h e

c o u n t y t r e a s u r e r a l o n e may be c o n s i d e r e d , and d e f e c t s o r

o m i s s i o n s may n o t be c o r r e c t e d o r s u p p l i e d by a n y t h i n g

outside the record. The c o u r t found t h a t n e i t h e r t h e n o t i c e

o f a p p l i c a t i o n f o r t a x deed nor t h e a f f i d a v i t and proof of

s e r v i c e , which were f i l e d w i t h t h e c o u n t y t r e a s u r e r , showed

whether s e r v i c e on B e n t l e y by p u b l i c a t i o n had been accomplished

60 d a y s p r i o r t o t h e i s s u a n c e of t h e t a x deed t o King. Bentley,

230 F. 2d 4 . I n t h e a b s e n c e of a n a f f i r m a t i v e showing t o t h e

t r e a s u r e r of compliance w i t h a l l t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s of t h e

s t a t u t e s , t h e t a x deed was h e l d t o be v o i d , and t h e s u b s e q u e n t

r o y a l t y r e s e r v a t i o n by t h e County i n i t s q u i t c l a i m deed t o

King was d e c l a r e d i n v a l i d . B e n t l e y , 230 F.2d 7 .

While t h e B e n t l e y q u i e t t i t l e a c t i o n was on a p p e a l t o

t h e n i n t h c i r c u i t c o u r t , a d i f f e r e n t a c t i o n was b r o u g h t con-

c e r n i n g t h e LaFurge t r a c t , which King had p u r c h a s e d from t h e

County. The second a c t i o n , LaFurge v. King, b r o u g h t i n t h e

D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r Rosebud County, i s mentioned o n l y b e c a u s e

i t g e n e r a t e d a n exchange of l e t t e r s between t h e t h e n c o u n t y

a t t o r n e y and t h e lawyer f o r K i n g . The County a r g u e s t h a t t h e

l e t t e r s c o n s t i t u t e a d m i s s i o n s by King t h a t t h e C o u n t y ' s

r o y a l t y i n t e r e s t s i n t h e King and S t i l l w e l l t r a c t s a r e v a l i d .

Judgment i n t h e LaFurge a c t i o n was e n t e r e d on A p r i l 15,

1957, a f t e r t h e B e n t l e y c a s e had been d e c i d e d by t h e n i n t h

circuit. The judgment r e c o g n i z e s t h e C o u n t y ' s r e s e r v a t i o n s .
 The County r e l i e s on t h e l e t t e r s , a c t i o n s and a d m i s s i o n s

of King, made i n r e g a r d t o t h e B e n t l e y and LaFurge cases,

a s s u p p o r t f o r t h e C o u n t y ' s d e f e n s e s of e s t o p p e l and l a c h e s .

W e do n o t s e t f o r t h t h e a c t s and a d m i s s i o n s i n d e t a i l b e c a u s e

we h o l d t h e d e f e n s e s of e s t o p p e l and l a c h e s i n a p p l i c a b l e i n

any e v e n t .

PROCEDURAL HISTORY O THIS APPEAL
F

I n March of 1956, Roy King conveyed one-half interest

i n a l l m i n e r a l s i n and under t h e King and S t i l l w e l l t r a c t s

t o h i s ex-wife, C e l i a I . Shock, a s p a r t of a p r o p e r t y s e t t l e -

ment agreement. Shock i s t h e o t h e r named p l a i n t i f f i n t h i s

action.

Roy King d i e d i n December 1975. I n November 1975, o i l

had been d i s c o v e r e d on t h e King and S t i l l w e l l t r a c t s . All

p r o c e e d s due on t h e r o y a l t y i n t e r e s t s i n d i s p u t e have been

h e l d i n escrow by t h e o i l p r o d u c e r s pending t h e outcome of

t h i s case.

On A p r i l 2 , 1976, and a g a i n on F e b r u a r y 1 8 , 1977, t h e

h e i r s of A l b e r t S t i l l w e l l q u i t c l a i m e d a l l t h e i r r i g h t , t i t l e

and i n t e r e s t i n t h e S t i l l w e l l t r a c t t o t h e p l a i n t i f f s .

K i n g ' s widow and h i s ex-wife f i l e d t h e i r q u i e t t i t l e

c o m p l a i n t on November 1 5 , 1977. U l t i m a t e l y t h e County f i l e d

a n amended answer denying a l l a l l e g a t i o n s of t h e c o m p l a i n t ,

a l l e g i n g t h e v a l i d i t y of t h e t a x d e e d s and of t h e r e s e r v a t i o n s

of r o y a l t y i n t e r e s t s , and s e t t i n g f o r t h a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e s

of e s t o p p e l , l a c h e s , and s t a t u t o r y b a r t o t h e a c t i o n under

former SS93-2503 t o 2505, R.C.M., 1947, now s e c t i o n s 70-19-

304, 70-19-401 and 4 0 2 , MCA, r e s p e c t i v e l y .

T r i a l w a s h e l d on March 11, 1980. The o n l y p u r p o s e of

t h e t r i a l was t o i n t r o d u c e e x h i b i t s i n t o e v i d e n c e .

The D i s t r i c t C o u r t t h e n adopted t h e C o u n t y ' s proposed

f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s , c o n c l u d i n g t h a t t h e t a x t i t l e pro-
c e e d i n g s had been v a l i d l y conducted and t h a t t h i s a c t i o n was

b a r r e d by e s t o p p e l , l a c h e s and by t h e s t a t u t e s of l i m i t a t i o n .

P l a i n t i f f s appeal.

TAX SALE PROCEEDINGS

King T r a c t : A n o t i c e of a p p l i c a t i o n f o r t a x deed and a n

a f f i d a v i t and proof of s e r v i c e were f i l e d w i t h t h e c o u n t y

t r e a s u r e r p u r s u a n t t o s t a t u t e p r i o r t o i s s u a n c e of t h e t a x

deed by t h e t r e a s u r e r t o t h e County.

The n o t i c e of a p p l i c a t i o n f o r t a x deed s t a t e s , " t h e

p e r i o d w i t h i n which t h e . . . above d e s c r i b e d l a n d s and p r e -

m i s e s may be redeemed from t h e s a l e t o pay t h e t a x e s f o r t h e

y e a r 1931 h a s l o n g s i n c e e x p i r e d , and . . . the . . . [clerk

and r e c o r d e r ] w i l l , on t h e 1st day of S e p t . , 1939, which

w i l l be a t l e a s t s i x t y ( 6 0 ) days a f t e r t h e s e r v i c e of t h i s

n o t i c e upon you, make a p p l i c a t i o n t o t h e T r e a s u r e r of Rosebud

County f o r t a x deed t o be i s s u e d t o i t a s p r o v i d e d by law."

I t i s d a t e d J u n e 1 4 , 1939, and i s d i r e c t e d t o King and t o

two mortgagees.

The a f f i d a v i t and proof of s e r v i c e s t a t e s , i n t e r a l i a ,

t h a t t h e c l e r k and r e c o r d e r s e r v e d c o p i e s of t h e above-

mentioned n o t i c e upon King and t h e mortgagees by m a i l , and

t h a t " t h e r e c e i p t s f o r l e t t e r s , showing d e l i v e r y t h e r e o f ,

a r e on f i l e i n t h e O f f i c e of t h e County C l e r k of Rosebud

County, Montana . . ." The a f f i d a v i t a l s o s t a t e s t h a t t h e

n o t i c e was p u b l i s h e d i n t h e l o c a l newspaper f o r two c o n s e c u t i v e

weeks, " a s i s shown by t h e A f f i d a v i t of P u b l i c a t i o n which i s

on f i l e i n t h e of £ i c e of t h e County C l e r k of Rosebud County,

Montana . . ." The a f f i a n t was t h e a c t i n g c o u n t y c l e r k ; t h e

a f f i d a v i t i s d a t e d August 3, 1939, less t h a n one month p r i o r

t o t h e d a t e on which t h e n o t i c e s t a t e s t h a t a p p l i c a t i o n

would be made. A t a x deed f o r t h e King t r a c t was i s s u e d t o

t h e County on September 1, 1939.
 Nothing on t h e f a c e of t h e r e c o r d b e f o r e t h e t r e a s u r e r

shows t h e d a t e on which n o t i c e was a c t u a l l y g i v e n t o King.

The t r e a s u r e r c o u l d n o t have known i f n o t i c e had a c t u a l l y

been g i v e n more t h a n 60 d a y s p r i o r t o t h e d a t e he i s s u e d t h e

deed, a s r e q u i r e d by t h e s t a t u t e s e t f o r t h below.

S t i l l w e l l Tract: A l b e r t S t i l l w e l l was s e r v e d by m a i l i n

Pennsylvania. H i s widow s i g n e d f o r t h e l e t t e r .

The form of t h e n o t i c e of a p p l i c a t i o n f o r t a x deed and

t h e a f f i d a v i t and proof of s e r v i c e , f i l e d w i t h t h e t r e a s u r e r ,

a r e i d e n t i c a l t o t h o s e r e g a r d i n g t h e King t r a c t , e x c e p t t h e

a f f i d a v i t does n o t s t a t e t h a t t h e n o t i c e was p u b l i s h e d . The

n o t i c e i s d a t e d October 1 8 , 1943, and t h e a f f i d a v i t J a n u a r y

5, 1 9 4 4 . N d a t e of m a i l i n g t h e n o t i c e i s s t a t e d , and t h e
o

r e c e i p t f o r the l e t t e r i s r e f e r r e d t o a s being f i l e d with

t h e county c l e r k . The t a x deed was i s s u e d J a n u a r y 1 5 , 1944.

Again, t h e t r e a s u r e r c o u l d n o t have known whether t i m e l y

n o t i c e i n f a c t had been g i v e n .

DISCUSSION

The f o l l o w i n g s t a t u t e s were a p p l i c a b l e a t t h e t i m e t h e

t a x deeds were i s s u e d t o t h e County:

" N o t i c e of a p p l i c a t i o n ---f o r t a x deed. The p u r c h a s e r
of p r o p e r t y s o l d f o r d e l i n q u e n t t a x e s . .. must,
. . . a t l e a s t s i x t y ( 6 0 ) d a y s b e f o r e he a p p l i e s f o r
a d e e d , s e r v e upon t h e owner of t h e p r o p e r t y p u r c h a s e d ,
i f known, . . . a written notice, stating t h a t said
p r o p e r t y , o r a p o r t i o n t h e r e o f , h a s been s o l d f o r
d e l i n q u e n t t a x e s , g i v i n g t h e d a t e of s a l e , t h e amount
of p r o p e r t y s o l d , t h e amount f o r which i t was s o l d ,
t h e amount d u e , and t h e time when t h e r i g h t of redemp-
t i o n w i l l e x p i r e , o r when t h e p u r c h a s e r w i l l a p p l y f o r
a t a x d e e d , and t h e owner of t h e p r o p e r t y , . . . has
t h e r i g h t of redemption i n d e f i n i t e l y u n t i l such
n o t i c e h a s been g i v e n . . . N o t i c e of any owner,
. . . s h a l l be g i v e n by r e g i s t e r e d l e t t e r a d d r e s s e d t o
. . . [ t h e owner] a t t h e p o s t o f f i c e a d d r e s s of s a i d
owner . .. I n c a s e of unoccupied p r o p e r t y . . .
such n o t i c e must be by r e g i s t e r e d m a i l d e p o s i t e d i n
t h e p o s t o f f i c e , a d d r e s s e d t o any known owner r e s i d -
i n g i n o r o u t s i d e of s a i d c o u n t y w i t h t h e p o s t a g e
thereon prepaid ... a t l e a s t s i x t y (60) days b e f o r e
t h e p u r c h a s e r a p p l i e s f o r such t a x deed .. .If
 52209, R.C.M., 1935 ( l a t e r c o d i f i e d a s former
s e c t i o n 84-4151, R.C.M., 1947, now s e c t i o n
15-18-202, MCA.)

" A f f i d a v i t showing n o t i c e - given--sum a l l o w e d f o r
s e r v i c e of n o t i c e and making a f f i d a v i t . N deed
o
of t h e p r o p e r t y s o l d a t a d e l m a x sale must
be i s s u e d by t h e c o u n t y t r e a s u r e r ... t o the
p u r c h a s e r of t h e p r o p e r t y , u n t i l a f t e r such pur-
c h a s e r s h a l l have f i l e d w i t h t h e t r e a s u r e r . . .
a n a f f i d a v i t showing t h a t t h e n o t i c e h e r e i n b e f o r e
r e q u i r e d t o be g i v e n h a s been g i v e n a s h e r e i n
r e q u i r e d , which s a i d a f f i d a v i t must be f i l e d by
t h e t r e a s u r e r a s o t h e r f i l e s , p a p e r s , and r e c o r d s
k e p t by him i n h i s o f f i c e . . ." 5 2 2 1 2 , R.C.M. 1935
( l a t e r amended and c o d i f i e d a s former s e c t i o n
84-4156, R.C.M., 1947, now s e c t i o n 15-18-204, MCA.)

T h i s C o u r t c o n s t r u e d t h e above s t a t u t e s i n P e r r y v.

Maves ( 1 9 5 1 ) , 125 Mont. 215, 233 P.2d 820. I n Perry, the

a f f i d a v i t f i l e d w i t h t h e t r e a s u r e r of McCone County s t a t e d

a s follows:

" T h a t on Feb. 1 3 , 1940, t h e ... [county c l e r k ]
f i l e d i n t h e o f f i c e of t h e County C l e r k and
Recorder of McCone County, Montana, a n A f f i d a v i t
and Proof showing t h e manner i n which s a i d N o t i c e
of A p p l i c a t i o n f o r Tax Deed was g i v e n , a l l a s p r o -
v i d e d by t h e laws of t h e S t a t e of Montana, t o which
A f f i d a v i t and accompanying p r o o f s you a r e h e r e b y
referred." 125 Mont. 217, 233 P.2d 821.

This Court held a s follows:

"The p r o v i s i o n s of s e c t i o n 2212, Revised Codes of
Montana 1935, were mandatory and p r o h i b i t o r y . One
mandate w a s t h a t a n ' a f f i d a v i t must be f i l e d - -e by t h
treasurer . . . - -s o f f i c e . ' T h i s mandate p l a i n l y
i n hi
r e q u i r e d t h a t a n a f f i d a v i t must be f i l e d i n t h e
county t r e a s u r e r ' s o f f i c e . Another mandate of
t h e s t a t u t e was t h a t t h e a f f i d a v i t s o f i l e d i n
t h e county t r e a s u r e r ' s o f f i c e must show ' t h a t t h e
n o t i c e h e r e i n b e f o r e r e q u i r e d t o be g i v e n h a s
been g i v e n a s h e r e i n r e q u i r e d . ' The n o t i c e s o
r e q u i r e d t o be g i v e n was t h e n o t i c e e x p r e s s l y
p r o v i d e d f o r and r e q u i r e d by s e c t i o n 2209, Re-
v i s e d Codes o f 1935. The p r o v i s i o n s of t h e s t a t u t e
( 2 2 1 2 ) e x p r e s s l y f o r b a d e and p r o h i b i t e d t h e i s s u -
a n c e of a t a x deed by t h e c o u n t y t r e a s u r e r u n t i l
a f t e r t h e above mentioned a f f i d a v i t had been f i l e d
i n t h e county t r e a s u r e r ' s o f f i c e . The p r o h i b i t i o n
w a s t h a t no deed o f t h e p r o p e r t y s o l d a t a d e l i n -
q u e n t t a x s a l e must be i s s u e d by t h e c o u n t y t r e a -
s u r e r t o t h e p u r c h a s e r of t h e p r o p e r t y u n t i l a f t e r
such p u r c h a s e r s h a l l have f i l e d w i t h t h e t r e a s u r e r
a n a f f i d a v i t showing t h e r e q u i r e d f a c t s ... Em-
phasis supplied."
 "The a f f i d a v i t p r o v i d e d f o r i n s e c t i o n 2212, s u p r a ,
must s t a t e t h e e s s e n t i a l f a c t s , a s d i s t i n g u i s h e d
from mere c o n c l u s i o n s , showing t h a t t h e n o t i c e re-
q u i r e d t o b e g i v e n by s e c t i o n 2209, s u p r a , h a s been
g i v e n and u n t i l s u c h a f f i d a v i t was f i l e d i n h i s
o f f i c e showing -- t h e c o u n t y t r e a s u r e r was
such f a c t s
d e n i e d t h e a u t h o r i t y and power t o i s s u e a v a l i d deed
t o t h e p u r c h a s e r o f t h e p r o p e r t y s o s o l d a t de-
linquent tax sale.

" P r o c e e d i n g s on t a x s a l e s a r e i n i n v i t u m . Every
e s s e n t i a l o r m a t e r i a l s t e p p r e s c r i b e d by t h e s t a t u t e
must b e s t r i c t l y f o l l o w e d . I f t h e requirements of t h e
s t a t u t e a r e n o t s t r i c t l y f o l l o w e d t h e s a l e may b e
avoided. I n t h e county t r e a s u r e r ' s proceedings t o
s e l l t h e l a n d t h e r e i s no d i s t i n c t i o n r e c o g n i z e d be-
tween t h e mandatory and d i r e c t o r y r e q u i r e m e n t s of
the statute. The c o u n t y t r e a s u r e r m u s t a c t a s t h e
statute directs. Otherwise he a c t s without a u t h o r i t y
and t h e p u r p o r t e d s a l e which h e assumes t o make i s i n -
valid. T h i s h o l d s t r u e even though t h e r e q u i r e m e n t
w i t h which t h e c o u n t y t r e a s u r e r f a i l e d t o comply was
n o t o n e e n a c t e d f o r t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f t h e owner o f
the land.

" I . . . " I n determining t h e s u f f i c i e n c y of t a x t i t l e
p r o c e e d i n g s , t h e r e c o r d s a l o n e c a n b e c o n s i d e r e d and
d e f e c t s o r o m i s s i o n s may n o t be c o r r e c t e d o r s u p p l i e d
by a n y t h i n g d e h o r s t h e r e c o r d . " ... fcitationl'

" ' T h i s i s n e c e s s a r i l y s o , s i n c e s e c t i o n 2209, a f t e r
s p e c i f y i n g how n o t i c e s s h a l l b e g i v e n , p r o v i d e s a s
f o l l o w s : "The owner o f t h e p r o p e r t y . . . has t h e
r i g h t of redemption i n d e f i n i t e l y u n t i l such n o t i c e
h a s been g i v e n . " C e r t a i n l y " s u c h n o t i c e " d o e s n o t
mean "some n o t i c e " o r "any n o t i c e , " and n e i t h e r
t h e c o u n t y t r e a s u r e r n o r members o f t h e j u d i c i a r y
may s u b s t i t u t e t h e i r own i d e a s a s t o what n o t i c e
should be considered t h e e q u i v a l e n t of o r s u b s t i t u t e
f o r t h e n o t i c e r e q u i r e d by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e . ' . . ."
P e r r y , 125 Mont. 216-218, 233 P.2d 820-821.

The r e f e r e n c e i n t h e P e r r y a f f i d a v i t t o documents f i l e d

w i t h t h e c o u n t y c l e r k was h e l d i n s u f f i c i e n t t o c o n f e r j u r i s -

d i c t i o n upon t h e t r e a s u r e r t o i s s u e a t a x d e e d . The t a x

d e e d was h e l d v o i d .

J u s t a s i n Perry, the references i n the i n s t a n t a f f i -

d a v i t s t o r e c e i p t s f o r t h e m a i l e d n o t i c e s and t o t h e a f f i d a v i t

showing p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h e King n o t i c e , s t a t e d a s b e i n g

f i l e d w i t h t h e c o u n t y c l e r k , w e r e a l s o t o documents o u t s i d e

the record before the treasurer. The a f f i d a v i t s f i l e d w i t h

t h e t r e a s u r e r must b e h e l d i n s u f f i c i e n t t o show p r o o f o f
s e r v i c e of n o t i c e on King and S t i l l w e l l .

Because t h e t r e a s u r e r c o u l d n o t know from t h e r e c o r d

whether n o t i c e had been g i v e n w i t h i n t h e s t a t u t o r y p e r i o d ,

he had no a u t h o r i t y t o i s s u e t h e deed.

The County c i t e s Milne v. L e i p h a r t ( 1 9 4 6 ) , 119 Mont.

263, 174 P. 2d 805, and C a v i t t v. S e i r s o n ( 1 9 4 6 ) , 1 1 9 Mont.

437, 175 P.2d 767, i n s u p p o r t of i t s argument t h a t t h e

a f f i d a v i t s f i l e d w i t h t h e t r e a s u r e r were s u f f i c i e n t t o

confer j u r i s d i c t i o n t o i s s u e t h e t a x deeds. W agree,
e

however, w i t h t h e n i n t h c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of

Milne i n B e n t l e y v. Rosebud County, s u p r a , 230 F.2d 4-5. It

i s n o t c l e a r i n Milne whether t h e c o u n t y t r e a s u r e r had had

b e f o r e him i n t h e r e c o r d t h e d a t e on which n o t i c e was s e r v e d .

119 Mont. 269-270, 174 P.2d 808-809. To t h e e x t e n t t h a t

Milne c o n f l i c t s w i t h t h e h o l d i n g h e r e o r i n P e r r y on t h e

q u e s t i o n of s u f f i c i e n c y of t h e a f f i d a v i t , t h e Milne h o l d i n g

i s overruled.

C a v i t t , on t h e o t h e r hand, i s d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e on t h e

facts. T h a t c a s e d i d n o t c o n c e r n t h e q u e s t i o n of s u f f i c i e n c y

of a p a r t i c u l a r a f f i d a v i t ; r a t h e r , t h e q u e s t i o n i n v o l v e d w a s

whether any a f f i d a v i t had been f i l e d a t a l l . The c o u r t

t h e r e h e l d t h a t a t a x deed g i v e s r i s e t o s t a t u t o r y p r e -

sumptions t h a t o f f i c i a l d u t y h a s been performed and t h e l a w

h a s been obeyed. The d e f e n d a n t t h e r e f a i l e d t o c a r r y h i s

burden of overcoming t h e p r e s u m p t i o n s by f a i l i n g t o p r o v e

t h a t no a f f i d a v i t had been f i l e d . 119 Mont. 4 4 0 - 4 4 2 , 175

P.2d 769. The p l a i n t i f f s i n t h i s c a s e have shown t h a t t h e

f i l e d a f f i d a v i t s w e r e i n c o m p l e t e and t h e r e f o r e d e f e c t i v e ,

and t h a t t h e t a x d e e d s a r e v o i d f o r l a c k of j u r i s d i c t i o n i n

t h e t r e a s u r e r t o i s s u e them. The p l a i n t i f f s h e r e have

overcome t h e p r e s u m p t i o n s c i t e d i n ~ a v i t t .
 The D i s t r i c t C o u r t c o n c l u d e d a s f o l l o w s : "The t a x

t i t l e p r o c e e d i n g s c o n d u c t e d by t h e d e f e n d a n t , Rosebud County

were v a l i d and s u f f i c i e n t t o d i v e s t Roy M. King and A l b e r t

J . S t i l w e l l , and h i s e s t a t e , o f any t i t l e i n and t o s a i d

lands described i n p l a i n t i f f ' s complaint." Such a c o n c l u s i o n

i s c l e a r l y i n c o r r e c t from t h e e v i d e n c e ; t h e judgment b a s e d

t h e r e o n must be r e v e r s e d .

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

The County a s s e r t e d d e f e n s e s o f e s t o p p e l , l a c h e s and

s t a t u t e s of l i m i t a t i o n . The e s t o p p e l and l a c h e s d e f e n s e s

a r e p r e d i c a t e d m a i n l y upon t h e l a p s e o f t i m e between t h e t a x

s a l e s and t h e f i l i n g o f t h i s a c t i o n . A s support f o r the

defenses, t h e County r e l i e s on t h e a c t s a n d r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s

o f King and h i s l a w y e r i n r e g a r d t o t h e B e n t l e y and LaFurge

c a s e s p r e v i o u s l y mentioned. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t c o n c l u d e d

t h a t King a n d h i s h e i r s a r e b a r r e d by l a c h e s and e s t o p p e l t o

deny t h e C o u n t y ' s r e s e r v a t i o n . The c o u r t a l s o u s e d w a i v e r /

abandonment t y p e l a n g u a g e i n d i s c u s s i n g p l a i n t i f f s ' p r e d e -

cessors' ( t h e S t i l l w e l l s ' ) acknowledgement and r e c o g n i t i o n

of t h e County's i n t e r e s t s . ( C o n c l u s i o n No. 9 ; C o n c l u s i o n No.

4

W e hold t h a t t h e c o u r t ' s conclusions a r e n o t supported

by t h e f i n d i n g s , b e c a u s e one of t h e r e q u i r e d e l e m e n t s o f

each a s s e r t e d defense i s lacking.

E s t o p p e l r e q u i r e s a s o n e of i t s e l e m e n t s a d e t r i m e n t a l

r e l i a n c e on a n o t h e r ' s c o n d u c t . M a t t e r o f Shaw ( 1 9 8 0 ) ,

- ,
Mont. - 615 P . 2 d 910, 9 1 4 , 37 St.Rep. 1480, 1484.

T h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e County h a s done a n y t h i n g b u t

s i t back and w a i t f o r any r o y a l t i e s t h a t m i g h t come. stop pel

c a n n o t be found where t h e County h a s i n c u r r e d no d e t r i m e n t ,

n o r changed i t s p o s i t i o n . The County may l o s e t h e b e n e f i t

o f t h e r o y a l t y money, b u t i t would n o t b e i n a w o r s e p o s i t i o n
than before the tax sales.

L a c h e s r e q u i r e s a p a r t y t o s l e e p on h i s r i g h t s f o r s u c h

a period a s t o render enforcement i n e q u i t a b l e . Mountain

view Cemetery v . G r a n g e r ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 1 7 5 Mont. 351, 358, 574
P.2d 254, 258; D a v i s v . S t e i n g r u b e r ( 1 9 5 7 ) , 1 3 1 Mont. 468, 470-471,

311 P. 2d 784, 785. L e n g t h o f t i m e w i t h i n which r i g h t s a r e

not asserted i s not the only consideration. Matter of

E s t a t e of W a l l a c e ( 1 9 8 0 ) , Mont . 606 P.2d 1 3 6 , 139-

1-40, 37 S t . R e p . 158, 163. R o y a l t i e s have been e a r n e d o n l y

s i n c e 1975 which d o e s n o t r e s u l t i n a p e r i o d s u f f i c i e n t t o

show t h a t e n f o r c e m e n t would b e i n e q u i t a b l e . The County h a s

i n c u r r e d no d e t r i m e n t by s i m p l y w a i t i n g t o see i f a n y o i l o r

m i n e r a l s a r e produced.

The County a l s o a s s e r t e d a s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s

d e f e n s e , b a s e d on f o r m e r 8893-2503, 2504 a n d 2505, R.C.M.,

1 9 4 7 , now s e c t i o n s 70-19-304, 401 a n d 402, MCA.

S e c t i o n 70-19-304, MCA, i s an o l d s e c t i o n . Code anno-

t a t i o n s r e v e a l no Montana c a s e s w h i c h c o n s t r u e i t . However,

i t i s n o t a p p l i c a b l e h e r e on i t s f a c e , b e c a u s e t h e t e n - y e a r

p e r i o d s t a r t s t o run only a f t e r a competent c o u r t d e c l a r e s

the letters patent o r the grants void. Appellants seek j u s t

such a d e c l a r a t i o n i n t h i s case.

S e c t i o n 70-19-401 a n d 402 a r e " a d v e r s e p o s s e s s i o n "

statutes. The s t a t u t e s a r e a l s o i n a p p l i c a b l e . The r e c o r d

d i s c l o s e s no e v i d e n c e t o show t h a t p l a i n t i f f s , who h a v e

e s t a b l i s h e d l e g a l t i t l e , w e r e n o t " s e i z e d o r possessed" of

the r e a l property. The County h a s f a i l e d t o overcome t h e

presumption t h a t p l a i n t i f f s w e r e i n possession w i t h i n t h e

required period. Former 893-2507, R.C.M., 1 9 4 7 , now s e c t i o n

70-19-404, MCA. Warren v . Warren ( 1 9 5 3 ) , 1 2 7 Mont. 259,

262, 261 P.2d 364, 365. Even i f p l a i n t i f f s o r t h e i r p r e d e -

c e s s o r s w e r e n o t i n a c t u a l possession of t h e p r o p e r t i e s
within the period, t h e y a r e deemed t o have been " s e i z e d " o f

t h e p r o p e r t i e s b a s e d on t h e t i t l e t h e y h e l d . S t e p h e n s v.

H u r l y ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 172 Mont. 269, 274-75, 563 P.2d 546, 549-50.

The County f a i l e d t o p r o v e t h a t i t had f u L f i l l . e d a l l t h e

elements of a d v e r s e possession, necessary t o e s t a b l i s h t i t l e

i n i t s e l f under t h e above s t a t u t e s . Therefore, t h e s t a t u t e s

of l i m i t a t i o n a r e n o t a p p l i c a b l e .

The D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s c o n c l u s i o n a s t o s t a t u t o r y b a r i s

incorrect. W do n o t d i s c u s s p l a i n t i f f s ' c o n t e n t i o n t h a t
e

d o c t r i n e s o f e s t o p p e l , l a c h e s , and s t a t u t e s o f l i m i t a t i o n

c a n n o t be u s e d t o g i v e l i f e t o a n o t h e r w i s e v o i d t a x d e e d

b e c a u s e w e f i n d t h e d e f e n s e s do n o t a p p l y i n any e v e n t .

CONCLUSION

I t i s n o t necessary t o discuss o t h e r a s s e r t e d issues.

The C o u n t y ' s t a x d e e d s a r e v o i d f o r l a c k o f j u r i s d i c t i o n i n

t h e t r e a s u r e r t o i s s u e them. Having r e c e i v e d n o t h i n g u n d e r

v o i d d e e d s , t h e County owned n o t h i n g from which i t c o u l d re-

serve royalty interests.

W e have d e t e r m i n e d t h a t p l a i n t i f f s a r e t h e owners o f

t h e r o y a l t y i n t e r e s t s i n t h e King and S t i l l w e l l t r a c t s . We

r e v e r s e t h e judgment o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t and d i r e c t t h e

e n t r y o f judgment i n a c c o r d w i t h t h i s o p i n i o n .

-C

M s t i c e

W e concur:

Chief J u s t i c e