context: NDCC 57-24--29 (emphasis added). This statute clearly places the burden upon the * delinquent taxpayer to prove that all owners did not receive proper notice of the impending tax sale.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 71 N.D. 499, 508
citation_a.parenthetical: "The burden ... is upon the plaintiffs to show that the required notice was not given."
citation_a.sentence: See Fish v. France, 71 N.D. 499, 508, 2 N.W.2d 537, 542 (1942) (“The burden ... is upon the plaintiffs to show that the required notice was not given.”); see also Remmich v. Wagner, 77 N.D. 120, 126, 41 N.W.2d 170, 173 (1950) (“[P]rima facie evidence of the certificate must have been overcome before the sale can be set aside.”)- Compare NDCC 57-24-08 (requiring proof of publication of notice of tax sale by affidavit); NDCC 57-27-03 (requiring proof of service of notice of expiration of redemption period).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 41 N.W.2d 170, 173
citation_b.parenthetical: "[P]rima facie evidence of the certificate must have been overcome before the sale can be set aside."
citation_b.sentence: See Fish v. France, 71 N.D. 499, 508, 2 N.W.2d 537, 542 (1942) (“The burden ... is upon the plaintiffs to show that the required notice was not given.”); see also Remmich v. Wagner, 77 N.D. 120, 126, 41 N.W.2d 170, 173 (1950) (“[P]rima facie evidence of the certificate must have been overcome before the sale can be set aside.”)- Compare NDCC 57-24-08 (requiring proof of publication of notice of tax sale by affidavit); NDCC 57-27-03 (requiring proof of service of notice of expiration of redemption period).