Utah County strikes tax‑sale protest item after bank agrees to seek excess proceeds in court

Utah County commissioners voted 2–0 to strike a tax‑sale protest hearing after the protesting trustee said the creditor would pursue excess proceeds through the courts rather than press the county to set aside the sale.

The protest involved a property sold as an undivided interest that generated excess proceeds. County staff and counsel acknowledged the county did not notify the recorded trustee of the trust deed, an omission that ordinarily supports overturning a sale. County counsel advised the commission that, under the county’s new ordinance on excess proceeds, the party seeking funds must petition the Fourth District Court for an order releasing those proceeds.

Why it matters: the court petition process determines whether excess proceeds can be disbursed to satisfy liens before ownership transfers are finalized. If excess proceeds are available and a court orders payment, the credit union could be paid from those funds, the county’s tax amount would be satisfied, and the remaining excess returned to any other legitimate claimant.

County counsel noted the omission to the trustee of the trust deed and urged the commission to be prepared to overturn the sale absent withdrawal of the protest. “We did not notify the trustee of the trust deed,” a county counsel speaker said during the hearing.

Marlon Bates, the trustee/attorney representing Security Service Federal Credit Union, told commissioners the credit union is owed roughly $22,500 and said it would be willing to withdraw the protest if excess proceeds sufficient to satisfy that amount are identified and paid following a court order. “The credit union is owed approximately $22,500,” Bates said during the hearing.

Officials described two administrative routes: the creditor may petition the district court for an order directing the county to pay claimed excess proceeds, or the county may transfer funds to the state treasurer’s office and allow claimants to pursue the state process. County staff said the county is currently holding the funds and recommended the trustee pursue a court petition under the new excess‑proceeds ordinance (municode reference provided during the meeting).

Family members of the current owner asked the county not to overturn the sale, saying the outcome would help pay taxes and assist the homeowner’s living situation. Kylie Adams, speaking for her mother, said the family would prefer the commission to let the process proceed so the bank and taxes can be paid and the homeowner assisted.

Motion and vote: Commissioner (Speaker 2) moved to strike item 18 in light of the protester’s willingness to withdraw the protest and pursue excess funds through the court. Commissioner (Speaker 1) seconded; the motion carried with a 2–0 voice vote. The commission recorded the item as stricken and will hold the proceeds pending the claims process.

Next steps: Bates indicated he will petition the Fourth District Court for an order to release excess proceeds and would withdraw the protest if the court can direct payment of the approximately $22,500 owed to the credit union. County staff said they would provide the accounting of taxes and disbursements necessary for that petition and advised the parties that the final disbursement will depend on the court’s order or on the state treasurer’s process if funds are transferred to the state.

Authorities and references discussed at the hearing include the county’s excess‑proceeds ordinance (referenced as ordinance 3.04.0.15 during the meeting) and a county/state tax statute cited in discussion (transcript reference to local tax statute numbering).