Facts: Originally three lots of land were owned by one common owner. Lot A was
seized by the government because the owner did not pay taxes and was purchased by P.
Lots B and C were taken over by D’s, who were the owners trustees. This argument was
over sewer and water lines. P wanted an implied easement over Lot B and an injunction
over D because they were interfering with his water and sewer lines.
Issue: Being that the title passed involuntarily pursuant to tax title procedures, should this
change the result that would have occurred had title passed by an ordinary voluntary
conveyance?
Holding: Affirmed. A recognition that an implied easement may arise out of a taking of
property for nonpayment of taxes is not a departure from established law.
Rationale:
– The first element (former common ownership) is met
– The second element (transfer) has also been met. D argues that because the
transfer was involuntary as a result of the tax taking and thus did not intend to
burden his remaining property (B and C) with the easement claimed by P.
However there need not be an actual subjective intent on the part of the grantor,
but a presumed objective intent of the grantor and the grantee is based upon the
circumstances of the conveyance. These fictional implications of intent are
genuinely rooted in considerations of public policy
– Tax title procedures as a means of producing municipal revenue would be
hindered if members of the public bidding on property seized were to receive
fewer rights than ordinary grantees of the same property. “The importance of
collecting taxes in order that governmental functions may be discharged is
universally recognized. In the collection of taxes, the public interest requires that
land be taken for nonpayment of taxes and sold under such circumstances that the
necessary revenue may be obtained.”
– Further, the grantor, a delinquent, gained a benefit from the conveyance since at
leas a portion, if not all, of his unpaid taxes were paid out in the proceeds of the
sale
– Apparent use: To the extent that a prior use is required, the requirement is met
only if the use is apparent. That is, the use must be one which the grantee either
in fact knew about what he received his interest, or could have learned about with
reasonable inspection. Here, a plumber could have ascertained the sewer pipes,
and this added to the fact that the pipes were continuously used by all the houses
on the lots. Apparent is not the same thing as visible.