538 [362 Cecil PAYTON v. Robert E. BLAKE, Elizabeth Blake, Glenda L. Rice, Clinton P Rice, Jimmie T Bond, and Debra K. Bond 04-758 210 W3d 74 Supreme Court of Arkansas Opinion delivered June 9, 2005 DEEDS - TAX DEED - PARCEL NUMBERS ARE NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR A VALID LEGAL DESCRIPTION_ - The use ofparcel numbers was not a substitute for a valid legal description in a tax : deed; unlike Lots-and-Blocks descriptions in subdivision plats that are a recognized means of describing real property pursuant to Ark Code Ann, 5 14-17-208 (Repl 1998), parcel numbers have not been sanctioned _as a valid legal description. - - QUIETING TITLE - BURDEN ON PLAINTIFF TO DEMONSTRATE HIS TITLE IS VALID - BURDEN MET - In an action to quiet title, it was the plaintiff's burden to demonstrate that their tide to the land at issue was valid, and the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by finding that appellee-plaintiff clearly did so by presenting the court with the contract arrangement with the sellers and with appellee's installment note. Appeal from Crawford Circuit Court; Johnny R. Linberger, Judge; affirmed. Jenkins Lau, Firm, PLLC, by: N. Donald Jenkins, Jr, for appellant. Batchelor & Batchelor, by: Fines F. Batchelor, Jr , for appellees Blake. Nail Samuel Khoury, for appellees Bond. No bnef filed for appellees Rice. OBERT L BROWN, Justice. Appellant Cecil Payton ap-R peals from a circuit court decree which invalidates the tax deed granted to him after he purchased the land at a tax sale held for delinquent taxes. He contends that the circuit court erred in conclud-
PAYTON it. BLAKE
ARK I CIte as 362 Ark 538 (2005) 539 mg that the legal description in the tax deed was void and that this made the deed void We disagree with Payton and affirm the circuit court. The facts are these. On December 7, 1995, Edith Mayo conveyed the land at issue in this case by warranty deed to appellee Glenda and Clinton Rice (the Rices). On July 29, 1 9 98, the Rices sold the land to appellee Robert Blake on contract based on an installment note executed by Blake showing the Rices as payees: The land purchased was described in the note by a metes-and-bounds description-Part of the East half of the NW quarter and part of the West half of the NE quarter of section 22, township 10 North, Range 32 West, Crawford County, Arkansas, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the NE corner of the East half of the NW quarter thence West comer of the East half of the NW quarter Thence West along the north line of said East half 400. 9 feet. thence South 01 degree 37 minutes East 1068.65 feet thence East 210 feet to the point of beginning: thence continue East 291 feet . thence South 01 degree 37 minutes East 1043 25 feet to the center of Arkansa[s] highway 220: thence West 291 feet: thence North 01 degree 37 minutes West 1043_35 feet to the point of beginning. Less and except the following; beginning at the SE corner of above said tract: thence run in a westerly direction along center of Arkansas highway 220, 135.8 feet: thence North 231 feet . thence East 126_5 feet: thence south 231 4 feet to the point of beginning: Robert Blake's installment note described the total sales price as $35,000:00 with interest to accrue at a rate of 5:5%. The note required Blake to make 240 payments in the amount of $24076 each month to satisfy the debt. After purchasing the property, Blake made timely payments on the note, which left an unpaid principal amount of $28,606.50 due as of March 1, 2004. There was some dispute as to whether the Rices or Blake were to pay the real estate taxes Regardless of which party was actually charged with that responsibility, no taxes were paid for the years 1998 through 2001_ As a result, the property was certified by the Crawford County Collector to the State of Arkansas. The Land Commissioner then ordered the property to be sold at public Auction to satisfy the tAx delinquency
PA Y 1 UN V BLAKE 540 Cite as 3b2 Ark 538 (2005) [362 On May 12, 2003, Payton purchased the certified property for the bid sum of $2,500.00 plus $23134, which was the amount of unpaid taxes, penalties, interest, and costs remaining due and unpaid on the property. The Land Commissioner conveyed the property to Payton by Limited Warranty Deed No. 140361 which contained the following description of the land in question: PT W1/2 NE 1 /4 Section: 22 Township: 10N Range: 32 W Acres 6 49 Added just below the property description was "Parcel Number 001-11667-000." The Limited Warranty Deed is attached as an Addendum to this opinion.' Robert Blake and his wife, Elizabeth, next brought a quiet title action against Payton and contended that the Limited Warranty Deed was null and void. 2 After bringing suit, Robert Blake continued to make timely monthly payments in accor-daria- with the provisions of the insiallthent note by paying those amounts into the registry of the court. After a hearing on the Blakes' complaint and Payton's answer and counterclaim, the circuit court entered a decree and concluded as follows: The defendant, Cecil Payton, has a Linnted Warranty Deed for Forfeited Property Sold, to a tract of lands in Crawford, Arkansas described as Pt W V2 NE 1/4, Section 22,Township 10 N, Range 32 W, containing 6.49 acres, forfeited for the year of 1998, assessed in the name of Clinton Paul & Glenda Rice The legal description in said deed, and in the forfeiture documents, is a void description, thereby making the deed -void, and it is hereby set aside and held for naught: The plaintiffs, Robert E. Blake and Elizabeth Blake, shall reimburse the defendant, Cecil Payton, the sum of $23334, which as set out in said Tax Deed, is the total amount of taxes, penalties, interests ' On May 27, 2003, the Rices deeded the property by warranty deed to appellees Junrnie T Bond and Debra K. Bond The effect of that deed on Payton s tax deed is not an issue in this appeal = This complaint asserts that both Robert Blake and Elizabeth Blake were the buyers of the property and nude payments accordingly Yet, the installment note only shows Robert Blake as the maker of the note
PAYTON V' BLAKE ARK I Cite as 362 Ark, 538 (2005) 541 and costs, involved in the transaction, and he shall look to the State ofArkansas for any amounts in excess of this which he may have paid for the real estate in his deed: Payton now raises two points on appeal: He first contends that the circuit court erred in concluding that the Limited Warranty Deed was void as a matter of law due to an invalid property description We disagree. Early on, this court declared a tax deed invalid for want of a sufficient legal description of the land involved: See Walls v. Mills, 14 Q Ark. 670, 225 S.W. 225 (1920), In Walls, the description held to be insufficient to validate the deed was almost identical to the description in the deed presently at issue. That description was as follows: "Pt NW NW Section 7 Township 12 S, Range 29 W. 11.16 acres." Walls, 149 Ark at 670, 225 S.W. at 225: We held that the description was null and void: Similarly, this court later invalidated a tax deed describing land as "SW corner NE 1/4 NE 1/4 Section 1. Township 7 North, Range 4 West, 5 acres E of R." See Gardner v. Johnson, 220 Ark. 168, 170, 246 S.W.2d 568, 569 (1952). One commentator posits that Arkansas jurisprudence reveals that more precision is required for a legal description in a tax deed than for a conveyance between individuals. See Paul Jones, Jr:, The Arkansas Law of Title to Real Property, 5 248 at 188-199 (1935): See also Undernehrv. Sandlin, 35 Ark. App 207, 816 S.W.2d 635 (1991). On the other hand, this court has held that the reference to a subdivision plat may validate a property description. See Moseley v. Moon, 201 Ark. 164, 144 S W,2d 1089 (1940). In Moseley, this court discussed property conveyed by tax deed which described the land as "Lots 10, 11, and 12 of Block 21 W of the town of Swifton. Jackson county, Arkansas." We held that the description was sufficient, because the record included a "plat of the town of Swifton, fandl there is but one block numbered 21 in the town and this block embraces the three lots in question." Thus, the property description was valid, because additional information, namely the plat, was referenced: We said: . [A] description ofland in a tax deed is sufficient if the descnption itself furnishes a key through which the land may be definitely located by proof ahunde Kelly v Saltnger, 53 Ark: 114, 13 S.W. 596; Lonergan v: &E'er, 59 Ark, 15,26 SW:13. Buckner v: Sou, 79 Ark 442, % S W 184 Of course the converse of this proposition
PAY l'ON V, BLAKE
542 Cite as 362 Ark, 538 (2005) [362 is true. That is to say, extrinsic evidence is not admissible to cure or perfect a description which in itself is void and offers no key or suggestion by which the land may be located. Moseley v Moon, 201 Ark. 164, 167, 144 S.W 2d 1089, 1090 (1940) (quoting Halliburton v. Brinkley, 135 Ark. 592, 204 S W 213 (1918)). The question, then, for this court to resolve is whether a parcel number is a comparable description to a Lot-and-Block description in a deed which necessarily refers to a plat of the property that has been recorded. Testimony at trial by Connie Beyerle, an abstractor for the Crawford County Assessor's office, revealed that the legal description in Payton's tax deed was not complete by itself, but she went on to say that her office identifies what piece of property Payton bought by the parcel number. She gave the circuit court her understanding of what a parcel number is: _ That parcel number is basically hke a social security number of that piece ofproperty Uh you pull those cards, we have records, we have the old cards that we keep files on and we also have everything in computer, and on those cards and in our computer we have all the deed references, and anybody that is buying State land or is doing research whether it's State land or just buying it from an individual, when they come in and do research, we give them the book and page and they can go CO the Circuit Clerk's office and pull the deeds and get the fall legal description. We conclude that the legal description in the Payton deed is not complete. Even considering Ms. Beyerle's testimony of what can be done to obtain the description, it involves several steps. One must first examine the cards in her office, find the book and page number, go to the deed records, and then ascertain the actual description from that book and page number: The property description found presumably would be the metes-and-bounds description in the Mayo deed to the Rices: This procedure fails the test of an accurate, complete, and specific legal description: Furthermore, we do not view a reference to a parcel number in a tax deed as remotely comparable to a Lot-and-Block description in a deed which necessarily brings into play a recorded subdivision plat. [1] Hence, it appears that the parcel number system is used by assessors and collectors to reference land for tax purposes. Yet,
PAYTON V. BLAKE ARK.] Cite k 362 Ark 538 (2005) 543 neither this court nor the General Assembly has sanctioned the use of parcel numbers as a substitute for valid legal descriptions, while Lots-and-Blocks descriptions in subdivision plats are a recognized means of describing real property. See, e„g., Ark. Code Ann, 5 14-17-208 (Repl. 1998). For his second point, Payton claims that the Blakes failed to meet their burden of establishing a prima facie case for quieting title in themselves regarding the land at issue. In this regard. we have said recently: In an action to quiet title, the plaintiff must recover on the strength of his own tide and not on the weakness of the defendant's tide Wyatt v Wycough, 232 Ark. 760.341 S.W.2d 18 (1960). Wyatt v. Arkansas Game & Fish Commission, 360 Ark_ 507,202 S.W.3d 513 (2005). Thus, it is clear that it was the Blakes' burden to demonstrate that their title to the land at issue was valid, [2] There is no question that they met this burden of proof. They presented the court with the contract arrangement with the Rices and specifically Robert Blake's installment note. The circuit court was convinced that the contract was valid. We agree. There was no abuse of discretion by the circuit court in this regard. Affirmed
PAY 1 ON V BLAKE 544 Cite as 362 Ark 538 (2005) [362 LIMITED WARRANT y DEED NO. 140361
FOR FORFEITED PROPERTY SOLD MARK WILCOX COMMISSIONER OF STATE LANDS
STATE OF ARKANSAS KNOW ALL, BY THESE PRESENT& 115/2/211: 14111,89 0 Filed 8 'bombe is MOH en tficta _ l Records of DCA KIM, :NCUIT ang The following described lands situated in the County of Crawford.led-theStete-ef-Adatesase-wasaubjecK taxation for the years set forth below; and whereas, said property was duly certified by the County Clerk/Collector to the State of Arkansas for non-payment of the taus due thereon as set forth below, to wit PT W 112 NE114 Season 22 Township lON Range 32W Acres 649 Parcel Number 001-11667-000 Year Daiwal. 1998 Code; 25-8 AND WHEREAS, after me expiramm of um tune requwed by law, said property remaining unredeemed was subject to sale by the Comoustooner of State lands pursuant to the provisions of Act 626 of 1983, as amended; and having fully complied with statutory requirements under said Act, the Conunlssioner of State Lands did on 4/3/2003, by virtue of the authority vested in him, offer for sale at public auction said property: AND WHEREAS, at the time aforesaid, CECIL PAYTON, 15501 HWY 220, CHESTER, AR 72934 being the highest qualified bidder did pay unto die Commissioner of State Lands the sum — of 52400B0, the And whole mom bid; - Whereas after the elapse of ume to redeem as provided by law, CECIL PAYTON, did tender unto the Commissioner of State Lands the sum of 5233.34, the whole amount of the taxes, penalties, interest and costs then remaining due and unpaid on said properly NOWi THEREFORE, KNOW YE, THAT Irate I, Mark Wilcox, Commissioner of State Lands within and for the af Arkansas, having fully complied with the requirements of the said Act 626 of 1983, as amended, for and in consideration of SIMI of moocy so paid, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, and under and by virtue of the authority Vested in me by law, do, by these presents, GRANT, SELL and CONVEY unto the above named person and their heirs and assigns forever, all the right, title and interest of the State of Arkansas in and to the said property, cc which may be hereafter acquired_ TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same unto die said CECIL PAYTON and unto their heirs and assigns forever WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL, as Commissioner of State May 07, 2003 This instrument prepared by' Commissioner of State Lands 109 State Capitol Mark Wa Lath Rock, Arkansas 72201 Commits Deed Mailed to BY Lisa Pelton Deputy Commas CECIL PAYTON 15501 HWY 220 Taxes 1998 - 2001 CHESTER, AR 72934 Was assessed in the name of cuNrON PAUL & GLENDA RICE EXHIBIT "Cn ip 7 (D , /7
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.