Anadarko Land Corporation F/K/A Union Pacific Land Resources Corporation, a Nebraska Corporation, and Three Sisters, Llc, a Wyoming Limited Liability Company v. Family Tree Corporation, a Wyoming Corporation, 2017 WY 24

Background

Union Pacific received a 1901 patent to Section 7 (surface + minerals) in Laramie County; county assessed taxes on the unproduced minerals in 1911 and, after nonpayment, sold the minerals at tax sale in 1912; county acquired the property and later sold to private parties, with a commissioner’s/tax deed recorded in 1949.
Union Pacific nevertheless conveyed the surface in 1914 but purported to reserve minerals; later chains of conveyances produced two competing mineral claims—Anadarko (via Union Pacific → RME → Anadarko) and Family Tree (via county tax sale → subsequent purchasers → Family Tree leases/grants).
Family Tree sued to quiet title in 2014, asserting the county tax proceedings were valid and the tax deed title had vested; Anadarko and allied Three Sisters argued the 1911 assessment (taxation of minerals in place) was unconstitutional, making the tax sale/deed void ab initio.
The district court granted summary judgment to Family Tree, concluding county taxing authority in 1911 was broad enough and, even if erroneous, the assessment made the tax deed voidable (not void); after-acquired title doctrines also supported Family Tree’s title.
On appeal the Wyoming Supreme Court framed the central question as whether the tax deed was void (collaterally attackable anytime) or merely voidable (subject to the six-year statute of limitations). The Court affirmed the district court.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Anadarko)	Defendant's Argument (Family Tree)	Held
Whether 1911 assessment and resulting 1912 tax sale/deed were void ab initio	Assessment violated Art. 15 §3 (no taxation of minerals in place); constitutional defect makes the deed void	Deed is void only if defect appears on its face; otherwise challenge is time-barred as voidable	Error in assessment was non-jurisdictional (an error in manner/scope). Deed was voidable, not void; statute of limitations bars Anadarko’s challenge. Affirmed
Proper test for void vs. voidable tax deed	(implied) Constitutional defect automatically voids deed	Void/voidable determination should depend on nature of defect, not whether evidence is extrinsic	Court adopts a jurisdictional test: deed void only where taxing entity utterly lacked authority or there was total want of jurisdiction; otherwise voidable
Whether after-acquired title doctrine applies if deed void	If deed were void, doctrine inapplicable	Deed not void; after-acquired title may unify surface/minerals and benefit Family Tree	Court did not address doctrine in depth because deed is not void; after-acquired title application stands as in district court
Whether extrinsic evidence may be considered in attacks on tax deeds	(Anadarko) extrinsic proof can show constitutional defect making deed void	(Family Tree) deed is fair on its face; extrinsic defects are subject to statute of limitations	Court rejects bright-line facial-only rule; allows extrinsic evidence but focuses outcome on whether defect deprived taxing authority/jurisdiction

Key Cases Cited

Mathews v. Blake, 92 P. 242 (Wyo. 1907) (facial defects in tax deeds may prevent statute of limitations from running)
Denny v. Stevens, 73 P.2d 308 (Wyo. 1937) (tax deed void on its face will not start limitations; court did not limit voidness to facial defects)
McCarthy v. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 131 P.2d 326 (Wyo. 1942) (tax deed void where assessment was not made in name of true owner — jurisdictional defect)
Lake Canal Reservoir Co. v. Beethe, 227 P.3d 882 (Colo. 2010) (void vs. voidable tax deed turns on whether taxing entity lacked authority or jurisdiction)
Cameron Estates v. Deering, 123 N.E.2d 621 (N.Y. 1954) (policy favoring relief from void tax deeds where assessment was defective; statutes of limitation should not strip true owner of title when deed is void)