13.2 Unilateral MistakeThe County of Contra Costa, California, held a tax sale in whichit...13.2...

80.2K

Verified Solution

Question

Accounting

13.2 Unilateral Mistake
The County of Contra Costa, California, held a tax sale in whichit offered for sale a vacant piece of property located in the cityof El Cerrito. Richard J. Schultz, a carpenter, saw the notice ofthe pending tax sale and was interested in purchasing the lot tobuild a house. Prior to attending the tax sale, Schultz visited andmeasured the parcel, examined the neighborhood and found the housesthere to be “ very nice,” and had a title search done that turnedup no liens or judgments against the property. Schultz did not,however, check with the city zoning department regarding the zoningof the property.
Schultz attended the tax sale and, after spirited bidding, wonwith a bid of $ 9,100 and received a deed to the property. Withinone week of the purchase, Schultz discovered that the city’s zoninglaws prevented building a residence on the lot. In essence, the lotwas worthless. Schultz sued to rescind the contract.
Can the contract be rescinded?

Answer & Explanation Solved by verified expert

4.1 Ratings (752 Votes)

OPINION Defendants State of California County of Contra Costa and tax collector County of Contra Costa appeal from the judgment of the Contra Costa County Superior Court which rescinded a contract between defendants and plaintiff Richard J Schultz for the purchase of realty at a tax sale The court ordered that each party restore to the other the consideration received under the contract Defendants contend 1 there was no statutory right to rescission of the tax deed 2 contract rules of rescission are inapplicable to a deed and 3 even if contract rules of rescission are applicable plaintiff may not rescind on the basis of either failure of consideration or unilateral mistake We affirm Plaintiff who had never before been to a tax sale was the highest bidder for a lot in El Cerrito Plaintiff joined in the bidding and won a bid of 9100 and received a deed for the property Plaintiff a carpenter planned to build a residence for himself on the lot Prior to the sale he obtained a map of the parcel from the tax collectors office and examined the neighbourhood and the lot He measured the parcel noting that it was the size of a small building lot The buyer was bound to inform himself of the regularity of the tax proceedings and assumed the risk of error Id at p 493 The Routh holding is no longer viable because current Revenue and Taxation Code sections 37253731 provide a remedy for a purchaser at an invalid or irregular tax sale These three cases consider distinguishable fact situations applying stringent responsibilities of an antiquated era The statement is part of the courts general discussion of the law pertinent to the invalidity of tax sales in other states in particular South Dakota Minnesota and Oklahoma Anderson v King County supra 200 Wash at pp 361364 The Washington court did not apply the abovestated rule in the Anderson case because Washington statutes provided no recovery for the purchaser at a void or invalid tax sale on that basis the Washington court applied the doctrine of caveat emptor Id at pp 360361 364 Defendants contend that because Revenue and Taxation Code sections 37253731 See Answer

Get Answers to Unlimited Questions

Join us to gain access to millions of questions and expert answers. Enjoy exclusive benefits tailored just for you!

Membership Benefits:

Unlimited Question Access with detailed Answers
Zin AI - 3 Million Words
10 Dall-E 3 Images
20 Plot Generations
Conversation with Dialogue Memory
No Ads, Ever!
Access to Our Best AI Platform: Flex AI - Your personal assistant for all your inquiries!

Become a Member