*1 title, seem person contesting his favor of the reasoned. writer the better
to'the should, my opinion, judgment
reversed.
WORTHEN, J., views concurs opinion of
expressed dissenting j. PETERSON,
Victor L. Plaintiff and Respondent, al.,
William D. CALLISTER et Appellant.
No. 8584.
Supreme Court of Utah.
July 16, 1957.
Dissenting Opinion Sept. 30, 1957.
HENRIOD, Justice. Appeal a judgment quieting realty plaintiff. Affirmed with costs to *2 subject patentee One Bales became property paid 1926. Thereafter he 1932, pursuant In taxes. to a San Juan certificate, County property treasurer’s county was struck taxes off to the for $32.74, amounting unac- virtue of an Deed, knowledged Tax Auditor’s strument, however, In was recorded. county, by Tax Deed, purported sell * * payment plaintiff “in consideration of *** delinquent taxes constituting said charge against real estate which was * ** for sold to San Juan nonpayment taxes assessed against it 1927-8-9-30 in for ” ** * This deed also sum of $250.00 recorded, acknowledged. although not plaintiff then the has Since In 1948 operated the a farm. quitclaim obtained the defendant Bales, patentee, but he oc- from has pos- cupied, paid on or taxes attacked time. This suit session in 1955. was commenced Hafen, Monticello, Ralph W. D. Callis- J.
ter, City, appellant. Lake for Salt urges that a number Redd, statutory steps were not Monticello, & con Frandsen followed
F. Bennion Price, property to the respondent. veying the there- Keller, as failure attach had plaintiff, such after to four-year period roll
an auditor’s affidavit assessment after one has received a delinquent thereto, year the face, for the valid and this is taxwise, acknowledge the instru- true failure to whether the tax title is valid or not. ments, etc., prevent title It all of which would is not limitation, unlike other statutes county and such passing from Bales to the as those barring negotia- an action on agree paper with ble then to the We passage of obliga- time. The technically may tion defendant in such remain but the hold- prevail passed, can er have but Likewise, enforce it. title tech- by virtue nically invalid tax title here even passed -not but the 5.3, An- 78-12-5.1 Code record owner cannot assert his title because valid notated Plaintiff had a the statute’s interdiction assert- not, through a sale ing which was derived up title or setting defenses. It ais stat- conveyance property in the repose, ute of obviously lay intended to rest proceeding for the course of as- liquidation had been levied of a tax which serted more acquisi- than four after *3 it, which tax was relieved tion of a tax proceed- under posses- Defendant did not have transfer. ings, and where the record owner has not during time the statu- possession sion thereof had during period. that tory period in which he must have protect his record in order to urges that because the satis- the evidence here title. We believe county deeds had no acknowledgments, title mentioned, fies the sections and that pass. could not and did not This contention on its face. The deed was valid is answered the observations above to with those almost identical facts here are technically effect that pass need Morris, 3 Utah 2d Hansen v. found in claimant, a tax title and also controlling, which consider we Title Utah Code Annotated that reaffirm and reasons we which sets out which binding makes the deed between the concluding as we do. parties, county, and —the —and having also all notice of the situa limi 78-12-5.1 is a statute of Title tion, which includes the defendant he prevents assertion a
tations having had actual notice the matter be- .of he has not a record owner defense '362 square pur- with the nature occupancy of plaintiff’s
cause of and, erty.1 pose act, lead to novel could results, believe, we toas de- unintended not raised Although purpose matter feat that entire make appeal, in this we feel constrained confuse, settle, designed seems to be wording concerning some observations uncertain, certain, and to make The defendant 78-12-5.1 and 5.2. statutory liquidation based during any time possession did not claim charges. deed, nor following the four during any time possession at
did he claim j., wade, j., years prior to commencement the four concur. literally and
of the If read action. WORTHEN, J., concurs in the result. of the entire context appear that one wording make it might CROCKETT, J., opinion will file later. twenty-five title, say, for
holding a tax thereon, action years, who commences having a if a defendant
could defeated September 30, 1957 show property could record property, CROCKETT, (dissenting). of the he-had Justice time, next within the brief The runs decision counter the funda- the action.
prior to the commencement principle deprive mental that in order to amind had in legislature We believe property through owner of his barring limitations four-year statute requirements proceedings titles, which against tax strictly complied lawof must be with.1 the tax the initiation period dated any claimant period difficulty presented The in this posses had title must proof. against the on review failure us only protect any suggestion claim had sion *4 in the be inferred must interpretation does Any other might have. 334, 573; Property, Law 46, P. American of Madsen, 261 P. 2d Utah v. Mathis 1. IV, 17.12, p. Sec. Dean, l. 574. Meagher 952; v. 97 Utah Vo 2d Railway 454; Jordan v. Utah Petersen, Neponset 939; 5 Utah Divas 2d 300 P. Co., 1. v. 156 P. 47 Utah Dixon, 2d 635. Co. Live-Stock Land &
363- ceedings in connection such ab- entry the in from the contents of purported shown. In fact deed the did recitals containing certain stract of title is acknowledgment indicate of even it purporting the interests indicate that to by provides our were aided statute which any had) (if San it Juan together that the certificate deed No docu- Peterson. other transferred to From acknowledgement self-proving.2 of the is give which would ment was introduced appears any presumption anything that such a of document the benefit by mistake, proceed- have come into inad existence regularity tax of antecedent the accomplished or vertence or machination even ings. This would not be There tax deed fraud auditor’s titleholden simply proof the is import in ef representation of which is included what me is be. It seems that it fect abstract. importance proper determina- utmost being proof There any failure of as to into in take the issues tion of this county acquired means which any fact document account see, in the property, terest from aught I can deed,, represent a purporting
abstract is interloper than an no more evidence, was introduced title, the chain of and the Peterson special any attributes law with endowed position. stands in no better proof by any unsupported and is Concerning statute of lim- recitals, which own than its other I gainsay itations3 do not that if Peterson anything. competent evidence had taken and held making exists under a tax No statute defined regular county prima statute, evidence of the protec- facie would be clothed with prove: ity proceedings. presupposes tax It does But tion. this that he had any prime requisite that there some sort of title to claim under. The upon attached applies or tax lien of that levied words that it any sale or proves defective, property; there tax title county re erly construed mean forfeiture that the lien; nor applies lieving of limitations one who pro propriety of the tax tax title at all. was the has no 78-12-5.1, 1953. 3. U.C.A. U.C.A. 1953 as amended.