Could a purchaser recover Washington property taxes paid after the land had escheated to the state?

Plain-English summary

The Washington AG concluded that property taxes assessed and paid after land had escheated to the state could be recovered under the Small Claims Act as it stood in 1957. Although the county sold the property at a tax foreclosure sale without knowing of the state's ownership, the superior court's escheat decree was a public record. The AG treated that record as making the erroneous assessment a “manifest error” for purposes of the refund statute.

The opinion states: “It would therefore be proper to accept a petition for refund of such taxes in conformance with the Small Claims Act.” (source).

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1957. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Could taxes paid on land already owned by the state be refunded?
A: Yes, on the facts presented. The AG said a refund petition was proper when a prior escheat decree showed the state owned the property when the taxes were assessed and collected.

Q: Did the escheat decree have to appear in the county auditor's records?
A: The county and purchaser lacked notice because it was not recorded there, but the AG relied on the superior court decree as a public record showing the assessment error.

Q: Why did the AG call the tax assessment a manifest error?
A: It applied an earlier AG definition under which an error could be clear from a county assessor's record or another public officer's record used for an assessment list. The court decree disclosed the state's ownership.

Background and statutory framework

The Pierce County prosecutor described land escheated to Washington by court order and later sold through county tax foreclosure. RCW 84.68.110 then allowed a taxpayer to petition the assessor for taxes collected because of a manifest assessment error that did not involve revaluation. The opinion applied that provision to the court decree and the taxes collected on the state-owned land.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.atg.wa.gov/ago-opinions/taxation-property-taxes-refunds

Original opinion text

Attorney General John J. O'Connell

TAXATION ‑- PROPERTY TAXES ‑- REFUNDS

Taxes assessed and paid on property previously escheated to the state may be recovered under the Small Claims Act.

January 28, 1957

Honorable John G. McCutcheon
Prosecuting Attorney
Pierce County
Tacoma, Washington Cite as: AGO 57-58 No. 7

Attention: !ttMr. Keith D. McGoffin

Civil Deputy

Dear Sir:

This is in answer to your request for our opinion as to whether property taxes may be recovered under the Small Claims Act which have been assessed and paid on property owned by the state of Washington. You state that after the property in question had been escheated to the state by court order, it was sold by the county at a tax foreclosure sale, and neither the county nor the purchaser was aware of the state's interest because there was no record of the escheat in the auditor's office.

It is our conclusion that the taxes paid under the described circumstances may be recovered under the Small Claims Act.

ANALYSIS

RCW 84.68.110 permits a taxpayer to petition the county assessor for refund of taxes erroneously collected as a result of a manifest error in assessment which does not involve revaluation of the property.

It has been previously ruled by this office that a "manifest error" is one which may become clearly evident upon examination of any record of the county assessor or other public officer, upon which any assessment list is based, AGO to Tax Commission, December 8, 1947.

You relate in your letter that the property about which the inquiry is made was escheated to the state by proceedings in the superior court of Pierce County. The entry of a decree of escheat by the superior court would of course be a matter of public record and the decree would disclose the state's ownership of the property. This being so, the error in assessing and collecting tax upon such property was clearly a "manifest error" within the meaning of that term as used in RCW 84.68.110. It would therefore be proper to accept a petition for refund of such taxes in conformance with the Small Claims Act.

Very truly yours,

JOHN J. O'CONNELL
Attorney General

KEITH GRIM
Assistant Attorney General