KROENERT v. ZASLOW et al.
Plaintiff appeals from a judgment rendered May 31, 1944, in favor of defendant Henry F. Zaslow in an action commenced by her on January 26, 1944, to quiet title to certain real property described as Lot 245, Block 4, Golden Bay Tract, in the City of Los Angeles, county of Los Angeles, State of California, recorded in Book 2, page 15 of Maps in the office of the county recorder.
The real property had been sold in 1926 to the State for nonpayment of taxes for the fiscal year 1925–1926 and in 1931 was tax deeded to the State. At a public auction sale plaintiff bid $4,700, which was accepted, and on November 19, 1943, she received a tax deed from the tax collector of Los Angeles County. At the trial plaintiff introduced this tax deed and also a certified copy of a tax deed from the tax collector of Los Angeles County to the State of California and rested. Defendant attacked the tax sale and deed on the ground that in preparing the budget of Los Angeles County for the four fiscal years 1927 to 1931, inclusive, the Board of Supervisors of said county failed to anticipate revenue from solvent credits and personal property taxes, and that said errors resulted in an over-assessment against said property for the period.
The court found that the County of Los Angeles illegally levied taxes upon the real property in excess of its requirements for the year 1927–1928 in the sum of $.21, for the year 1928–1929 in the sum of $.18, for the year 1929–1930 in the sum of $.04, for the year 1930–1931 in the sum of $.40. The conclusions of law drawn therefrom were stated as follows: ‘That the deed to the State of California is illegal and void by reason of the overlevy of taxes by the County of Los Angeles in the total amount of eighty-three cents ($.83)’; that ‘the State of California could convey to the plaintiff, Helene Kroenert, no greater title than it possessed and by reason thereof the title conveyed by said State to the plaintiff is illegal and void’; that ‘the defendant Henry F. Zaslow is entitled to judgment decreeing that plaintiff take nothing by reason of her Complaint.’
Since May 31, 1944, the Supreme Court, under circumstances similar to those presented by the instant case has decided that such an overlevy does not invalidate a tax deed given by the State. This appears from the unanimous decision of that tribunal published on May 1, 1945, in City of Compton v. Boland, 26 Cal.2d 310, 158 P.2d 397, which holds that the provisions of the so-called Curative Act of 1943, St.1943, p. 1993, therein referred to, were sufficient to defeat the claims of the defendants.
On the authority of that case we believe that the judgment in the present action should be reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court with directions to enter judgment for the plaintiff.
It is so ordered.
DESMOND, Presiding Justice.
SHINN and WOOD, JJ., concur.