Utah County withdraws parcel from tax sale after 2001 recording error leaves owner unnotified

Utah County commissioners voted to withdraw a parcel that had been sold at the May tax sale after county staff identified an apparent recording error that left the correct recorded owner without statutory notice.

Bert Harvey of the clerk/auditor's office told the commission the parcel at issue (parcel referenced as 260330156 in the protest documents) had been sold online and that the county had notified the owner shown in its records (Home Savings Bank). During preparation for the protest hearing, staff discovered a 2001 quitclaim deed that should have caused a different name to be on the ownership record. Paul Jones of the county attorney's office said that because the county did not provide notice to the correct recorded owner as required by state statute, the board could properly decline to ratify the sale in the public interest.

Protesters Kirk Sanford and Howard Ray Sanford, who said the property has been used and fenced as part of their family parcel for decades, presented aerial photos and other material showing continuous use going back to mid-20th-century images, and argued boundary-by-acquiescence and boundary-line agreement claims. County counsel and recorder staff reviewed the recorded documents and concluded the stronger legal basis for relief in this case was the lack of notice to the correct recorded owner stemming from the 2001 recording mistake.

Because the board had not yet ratified the winning bid, commissioners had three options: ratify the bid to the purchaser, reject and require resale, or withdraw the parcel from the sale. After public comment and discussion, the Sanford family agreed to adopt the county’s notice-based argument as part of their protest. The commission moved, seconded and voted to grant the protest and not ratify the sale, effectively withdrawing the parcel from the May sale. The winning bidder will receive a refund and the county will re-open its records and attempt proper notice before any future sale.

Bert Harvey told the commission the back taxes on the parcel for the five-year period were under $3,000 and that the county will return bid funds and buyer premiums to the successful bidder. Commissioners directed county staff to work with the Sanford family and title/recorder staff to clarify ownership, explain next steps for the Sanfords (including options such as quiet-title litigation) and to attempt statutorily required notice to the correct recorded owner before any re-sale.

The commission’s action was procedural and aimed at correcting an administrative defect in the sale process; it did not itself adjudicate ownership claims under boundary-by-acquiescence or quiet-title law. County counsel advised that any party asserting title via boundary or quiet-title claims would need to pursue that relief in district court. The board voted to grant the protest and withdraw the parcel 3–0.

Next steps: county staff will attempt notice to the identified recorded owner, refund the bidder, and the parcel may be re-listed at a future tax sale after statutory steps are satisfied.