Provo tax sale protest raises ownership dispute over parcel sold to Canyon Advantage

The Utah County Commission meeting held on July 20, 2022, focused on two protests regarding the sale of parcels at a tax sale conducted on May 26. The first protest involved a parcel located in Provo, previously owned by Jerry Lynn Taylor, who has passed away. The parcel was sold to the highest bidder, Wendy Fisher from Arizona. The discussion centered on the notification process prior to the sale and the implications of boundary line agreements that were not effectively recorded.

The county's representative explained that they had sent a certified notice to the address of record for Jerry Taylor, which was signed for, indicating successful delivery. However, concerns were raised about whether the notification process met the necessary standards, especially given that the ownership was complicated by the death of Jerry Taylor and the lack of notification to his surviving spouse, Mary Taylor, who was not listed on the parcel.

Commissioner Lee questioned the notification process, suggesting that more effort should have been made to ensure all interested parties were informed, particularly since the parcel was owned by someone who had passed away. The county's attorney confirmed that while they had met the minimum requirements, there were instances where additional efforts could have been made.

The recorder's office also addressed the issue of boundary line agreements that were submitted but not accepted due to not meeting state code requirements. This was significant because if the agreements had been valid, they could have altered ownership interests in the parcel, potentially affecting the tax sale.

The protester, representing Canyon Advantage, the current owner of the parcel, argued that the Taylors never owned the parcel in question, asserting that the tax sale should be invalidated due to a mapping error that resulted in the parcel being treated as a separate entity. The protester presented historical Google Earth images to illustrate that the parcel had been incorrectly mapped and claimed that the tax sale lacked proper due process notification.

The meeting concluded with a discussion on the implications of the boundary line agreements and the necessity for the county to ensure accurate records and notifications in future tax sales. The commission did not reach a decision during this meeting, indicating that further review and consideration of the protests would be necessary.