Thank you for at least trying to assist, but there are clearly still some misunderstandings, probably due to the complexity of the issue. What began as my trying to simplify by asking a narrow question as to the extent of district court jurisdiction in terms of their rulings, presumably not extending beyond their district and thus not being binding in other jurisdictions, as opposed to say, a state supreme court ruing that is binding everywhere in the state, the issue has mushroomed and grown into other issues.
In that regard I would like to concentrate on how to achieve my goals with a discussion of what I can do, rather than what I cannot do. Generally there is always something you can do, but it may require creative thinking. It has been suggested that the use of the declaratory judgments act may accrue to my benefit. I am not sure if what I am trying to do actually is considered a request for an advisory ruling, but in any case, from what you are telling me, in order to do either, there must be an actual dispute and two adversarial parties to the dispute. Therefore if an individual cannot ask for a declaratory judgment or ruling, it is simply a matter of creating a dispute and naming a second party, which begets the question of who that should be.
Actually there already is a dispute, but due to the complexities, I had not made that clear and what I did mention was misunderstood. I am a tax lien certificate investor which involves a seldom encountered niche in administrative tax law that I find is almost universally misunderstood by attorneys who have an ingrained "civil law" mindset, and by that I mean no disrespect, but it is true. Tax lien law is an administrative procedure, rather than civil, and the differences are relevant, even if misunderstood. Are you familiar with tax lien certificates?? (Reference to MCA Title 15, Chapters 16, 17, and 18) The procedures vary from state to state, but a brief overview is that in Montana, if property taxes are not paid, a lien attaches to the property and a tax lien certificate is created which is then offered for sale to investors, since the county needs the $$, rather than the IOU from the property owner for the unpaid taxes...i.e. the tax lien. That tax lien certificate can be "purchased" from the county via the payment of the delinquent taxes. The county then has their $$ and they are happy. The conveyance takes the form of an assignment of the county's rights in that lien, but also transfers the collection responsibilities to the investor in the event of a default on the part of the taxpayer at the end of the three year redemption
After proper notice, if the taxes are still not paid by the property owner, the county, by operation of law, an administrative procedure, not a civil procedure
, issues a tax deed to the investor and "wishes them well, and good by". Instead of a return of the investment with interest, the investor is given a piece of paper..the tax deed...which actually becomes a liability since it must be reviewed for propriety by the courts in a quiet title action before any further actions to take possession
or eviction of the prior owner can continue. In short, the issuance of the tax deed simply provokes a lawsuit instead of a return of the investment. The court makes a determination based on the procedures that were followed that lead up to the issuance of the tax deed and based on their findings, either affirms the deed or if there were errors in the collection procedures, orders a redemption of the lien according (presumably) to the terms outlined at MCA 15-18-413 (2)(b), which statute specifically includes "costs" which are defined at MCA 15-17-121(2)(a) and (b) and (c). Other than in the case of a deliberately abandoned property, this quiet title action invariably provokes a vigorous dispute where all the nuances of the tax lien statutes are examined, or in this case, ignored by the court. In briefings, the issue of the assignment was discussed, but not so much in terms of dispute regarding its issuance, but in terms of its effect, that is, in terms of the inclusion of "costs" in the final redemption amount of the tax liens in the case where the deed is voided due to procedural errors and a redemption amount must be calculated. The dispute was whether the costs enumerated at MCA 15-17-121(2)(a) as being recoverable by the county were included in the assignment of the county's rights to the investor. It should also be noted that the assignment contract/document not only assigns "all of the county's rights, title, and interest in the property" but also conveys the right of the investor/purchaser in the event of a default in the payment of the taxes, to proceed to obtain either a tax deed, or redemption "as provided by law".
Ran out of space... to be continued...