Utah County Commission sets aside contested tax sale after legal debate over assignment vs. payoff

The Utah County Commission voted 3–0 to adopt findings of fact and a decision on a contested tax sale after attorneys argued whether payments made earlier this summer were payoffs that extinguished a loan or conditional assignments that left standing with prior parties.

During a lengthy hearing, Craig Carlisle, an attorney representing Steve Turley, told the commission his clients’ documents and emails show the transactions were conditional assignments, not payoffs: “There was no question from day one that this was going to be an assignment and not a payoff,” Carlisle said, and he outlined emails, checks dated June 6 and a draft assignment and indemnity agreement that he said show the assignment process was still incomplete because the promissory note could not be located.

Opposing counsel David Jeffs, representing Jamie Evans, said the checks presented indicate 4 C’s had been paid as of June 6 and argued that, as of the dates in question, the protesting party did not hold a continuing interest. “As of the point in time when it comes before this particular body on June 28, they didn’t have any more than just the obligation to transfer the ownership of that promissory note,” Jeffs said.

County counsel briefed commissioners on the narrow legal question before the commission: whether notice of the tax sale had been properly provided and, therefore, whether the sale should stand. Counsel recommended that notice had been deficient for at least some parties and that the commission should set aside the sale. “The county is obligated to strictly [provide] notice, and we admit that we did not provide that notice,” county counsel told the panel.

Commissioners discussed whether the payments and the apparent but incomplete assignment changed the notice analysis. After amendments to add a finding that an assignment was in process, the commission approved the findings and related decision by voice vote; the chair announced the motion carried 3–0.

The decision means the commission will not accept the winning bid and will set aside the tax sale pending whatever administrative or legal follow-ups the commission’s findings require. Attorneys for the parties had been directed earlier in the meeting to provide redacted documents that Carlisle said supported his contention that an assignment — conditioned on delivery of a note or an affidavit of a lost instrument — remained incomplete.

The action followed earlier procedural moves: commissioners had tabled the item earlier in the meeting while attorneys arrived and later brought it back for the full hearing and vote. The county’s written findings and any additional instructions to staff will be reflected in the official minutes and the posted written decision.

No date for further proceedings or appeals was specified during the session.