Summary 2009 WY 29

Summary of Decision issued March 4, 2009

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.

Case Name: White v. Woods; Adamson v. Woods

Citation: 2009 WY 29

Docket Number: S-08-0078; S-08-0085

Appeal from the District Court of Albany County, the Honorable Jeffrey A. Donnell, Judge.

Representing Appellant Whites: Philip White, Jr., Laramie, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee Adamson: Pro se.

Representing Appellee Woods: Frank J. Jones, Wheatland, Wyoming.

Facts/Discussion: The Woods filed suit in district court seeking to quiet their title to several small pieces of property located in the interior of their ranch property. Among the defendants were Adamson and the Whites. The district court entered summary judgment against Adamson and the Whites. Their separate appeals were consolidated before the Court.
Background: Tax deeds in Wyoming: There are many specific and detailed requirements applicable to tax sales and tax deeds. Particularly relevant here are the requirements that, upon applying for a tax deed, notice must be provided in a specified manner to the person in whose name the taxes were assessed, to the person in actual possession or occupancy of the property, to the record owner, and to mortgagees. After receiving a tax deed, the tax-sale purchaser must file the notices and proofs of service to be recorded as instruments affecting the conveyance of real property. Wyoming courts have required strict compliance with the statutory requirements and have declared tax deeds invalid for relatively minor deviations from the requirements. The problems facing tax deed purchasers are due in part to a strong policy of protecting the former owner’s rights to redeem and recover his property. In 1975, the legislature enacted provisions meant to promote more stability and better marketability for tax deeds. Adamson and the Whites purchased their lots thirty-five years ago and obtained their tax deeds nearly thirty years ago but have never taken possession of their lots. In contrast, the Woods have used the lots as part of their ranch. Their principle claim was that they had acquired title by adverse possession. When the Woods acquired their ranch, the tax deeds were of record. Because the Woods did not own the ranch when the lots were sold for taxes, it is not clear they should benefit from the policy favoring former owners and their rights to redeem and recover property.
The Woods’ claims against Adamson and the Whites: The Woods filed for summary judgment stating they had acquired the property by the combination of a quit claim and a warranty deed. The Woods challenged the Adamson and Whites’ tax deeds on the basis of noncompliance with the statutory requirements for providing notice to interested parties. It is undisputed the Woods did not own or claim an interest in the property when the lots were sold at the tax sale or when Adamson and the Whites applied for their tax deeds, but the Woods appear to claim that they are entitled to challenge the tax deeds as successors. The question of whether summary judgment was precluded by the existence of genuine issues of material fact is intertwined with the issue of standing. After reviewing the record, the Court stated there remained the question of whether the Woods were successors in interest to the Kents. The Woods were not the owners at the time of the tax sale or tax deed, so the Court reviewed the record to determine whether they submitted facts adequate to show that they were prejudiced or injured and that a favorable court decision would provide them redress. The record was devoid of facts establishing that the Woods were the successors in interest to the Kents. Based on the record, Adamson was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because even if his tax deed was invalid, the Woods had no valid claim to the property. A court decision in their favor could not vest title in the Woods or otherwise redress their alleged injury.
Statutes of limitation: The parties have disputed whether two different statutes of limitation bar the Woods’ challenge to the tax deeds. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 34-2-132(a) or § 39-13-108(e)(vii)(D). By its plain language, the first statute applies only if the grantee has been in possession of the property for six months. The record demonstrated that the Whites never took possession of the lot, so the statute of limitation did not apply. The Whites claimed constructive possession but the Court stated that the Woods had been in possession of the land from the date of purchase and continuously since then, using it as part of their ranch activities. The second statute mentioned was a limitation on actions for the recovery of real property. The Woods’ action in the case was not one to recover the property since they were in possession of it. The Whites have never been in possession and the statute of limitation never commenced to run in favor of the Whites. It does not bar the Woods’ quiet title action.
Payment of property taxes: The Whites asserted they have paid property taxes on the lot ever since the tax sale and insist that the payment of taxes must mean something to the law. The legislature has provided remedies for tax purchasers whose tax deeds are discovered or adjudged to be invalid.

Conclusion: The Court determined that the district court improperly granted summary judgment in favor of the Woods in their challenges to the tax deeds of Adamson and the Whites.

Reversed and remanded.

J. Burke delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/bo43ea .

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. Please note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]