Le Maistre v. Leffers/Opinion of the Court

Section 205 of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940, 54 Stat. 1178, as amended, 56 Stat. 769, 770, 50 U.S.C.App. Supp. V § 525, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 525, provides in part that no portion of the period of military service which occurs after October 6, 1942, shall be included 'in computing any period now or hereafter provided by any law for the redemption of real property sold or forfeited to enforce any obligation, tax, or assessment.'

Petitioner owned land in Florida on which taxes became delinquent April 1, 1940. Under Florida statutory procedure the tax collector after notice sells the land at public sale and issues a tax certificate to the purchaser. At any time after two years from the date of the certificate the holder thereof may apply for a tax deed. Notice is given, a public sale is had, and a tax deed is issued. The owner may redeem the land at any time after issuance of the certificate and before issuance of the tax deed.

In accordance with this procedure a tax certificate on petitioner's lands was issued August 5, 1940. Petitioner was on active duty in the Navy from August 18, 1942, until his discharge on December 18, 1945. Application for a tax deed was made by one Conrod in January, 1943, and the deed issued to him on March 1, 1943. It is through him that respondents claim by mesne conveyances.

Petitioner filed this suit in equity on March 25, 1946, seeking to set aside the tax deed by reason of § 205 of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a judgment denying the relief, Fla., 31 So.2d 155, on the authority of its earlier decision in De Loach v. Calihan, Fla., 30 So.2d 910. The case is here on a petition for a writ of certiorari which we granted because the construction given to the federal Act seemed to us not only a dubious one but also at variance with Illinois Nat. Bank of Springfield v. Gwinn, 390 Ill. 345, 61 N.E.2d 249, 159 A.L.R. 468.

Under Florida law petitioner concededly could have redeemed any time between August 5, 1940, when the certificate was issued, and March 1, 1943, when the tax deed was issued. The provision of the federal Act with which we are here concerned became effc tive during that period-October 6, 1942. At that time petitioner was in the Navy and at once became a beneficiary of it. That means that the running of the time granted him under Florida law to redeem was tolled as long as he was in the military service. Since he would have had from October 6, 1942, to March 1, 1943, to redeem, the effect of the Act was to give him the same length of time after his discharge for that purpose. His present action being timely, there is thus no barrier to his recovery so far as the Act is concerned.

Two reasons, however, are advanced against it. First, it is argued that § 205 applies only where state law provides for transfer of title to the purchaser subject to defeasance by redemption. The Florida procedure is said to be not covered by § 205 since title passes only on issuance of the deed, which ends the period of redemption. We do not think § 205 deserves such a technical reading. The provision in question was added in 1942 to remedy what this Court had held to be a casus omissus in a preceding Act. Ebert v. Poston, 266 U.S. 548, 554, 45 S.Ct. 188, 190, 69 L.Ed. 435. Its language does no compel the narrow reading that is suggested; and the spirit of the amendment repels any such restriction. It covers 'any period * *  * provided by any law for the redemption of real property sold or forfeited,' etc. We see neither in that language nor in the legislative history of the provision any purpose to restrict its application to cases where redemption follows passage of title.

The second reason urged against petitioner is the one adopted by the Supreme Court of Florida in De Loach v. Calihan, supra. It held that § 205 is limited by § 500, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, §§ 525, 560. The latter section gives added protection to a person in military service by providing that no sale for taxes or assessments shall be made except upon leave of court 'in respect of * *  * real property owned and occupied for dwelling, professional, business, or agricultural purposes,' and by granting a given period for redemption. The Supreme Court of Florida held that § 500 describes the class of real property on which a soldier or sailor is granted indulgence, while § 205 indicates the period of the indulgence. Under that view petitioner would fail because the property in question does not appear to be land 'owned and occupied for dwelling, professional, business, or agricultural purposes.'

We do not, however, read the Act so restrictively. The two sections-205 and 500-supplement each other. Section 500, applicable to restricted types of real property, gives greater protection than § 205. It restrains the sale for taxes or assessments of specified types of real property except upon leave of court and prescribes for them a specified time within which the right to redeem may be exercised if the property is sold. Section 205 extends in terms to all land and only tolls the time for redemption for the period of military service. The other construction attributes to Congress a purpose to protect only certain classes of real property owned by those in the armed services. We cannot do that without drastically contracting the language of § 205 and closing our eyes to its beneficent purpose. But as we indicated on another occasion, the Act must be read with an eye friendly to those who dropped their affairs to answer their country's call. Boone v. Lightner, 319 U.S. 561, 575, 63 S.Ct. 1223, 1231, 87 L.Ed. 1587.

Reversed.