Jordan v. Jensen (2017)
Citation: 2017 UT 1; 391 P.3d 183 · Court: Utah Supreme Court, No. 20150257 · Opinion by: Chief Justice Durrant
The controlling modern Utah authority tying constitutionally adequate notice of a tax sale to the validity of the resulting tax title. The Court held that a tax sale conducted without due-process notice to a reasonably ascertainable interest-holder is a jurisdictional defect — the interest does not pass at the sale — and that Utah’s four-year tax-title statute of limitations cannot bar a challenge to a sale conducted in violation of due process. In so holding the Court overruled Hansen v. Morris on that point.
Facts
In 2000, Uintah County conducted a tax sale but failed to give notice to the record owners of a severed mineral interest in the property. More than a decade later, the pre-sale record owners of the mineral interest and the purchaser of the tax title disputed who lawfully owned the minerals. The tax-title holder invoked Utah’s four-year tax-title statute of limitations — Utah Code § 78B-2-206 — to bar the record owners’ suit, relying on the older rule of Hansen v. Morris, 283 P.2d 884 (Utah 1955), under which the limitation could validate a tax title even where notice was lacking.
Holding
The Court affirmed in favor of the record mineral-interest owners, holding:
- Because § 78B-2-206 was triggered by the County’s tax sale, and that sale was conducted in violation of the Due Process Clause, the limitations statute cannot be applied to bar the record owners’ suit; and
- A failure to provide notice to an interested party of a tax sale is a jurisdictional defect — the County failed to obtain jurisdiction over the mineral interest, so that property interest did not pass at the tax sale.
The Court expressly overruled Hansen v. Morris to the extent it held the tax-title limitation could validate a title where notice was constitutionally deficient.
Reasoning
- A limitations statute cannot be triggered by unconstitutional state action. Relying on later U.S. Supreme Court due-process developments, the Court reasoned a statute of limitations “will not apply when it is triggered by constitutionally defective state action.” Because the tax sale itself was the triggering event and was void for want of notice, § 78B-2-206 never validly ran.
- Notice as jurisdiction. Adequate notice to a reasonably ascertainable interest-holder is a prerequisite to the State’s power to extinguish that interest; without it, the proceeding lacks jurisdiction over the interest and cannot convey it.
- Stare decisis yields. The Court concluded Hansen’s contrary rule was inconsistent with modern due-process doctrine and overruled it on that narrow point.
Practical impact
- For investors / operators: A Utah tax title rests on proof of adequate notice to every reasonably ascertainable interest-holder — including severed mineral and other non-possessory interests. The four-year tax-title limitation (§ 78B-2-206) will not cure a notice failure, so a no-notice sale leaves the title permanently vulnerable. This is a central title-and-marketability and quiet-title-after-tax-sale diligence point in Utah.
- For former owners: A Utah tax sale held without notice to a reasonably ascertainable interest-holder may be challenged even after the four-year period, because the interest never legally passed.
Good-law status
Still good law (and itself the overruling authority). Decided 2017; not
overruled or limited as of last_verified 2026-06-02. Hansen v. Morris (1955) is
overruled on the notice/limitations point.
Why it matters
It is the Utah Supreme Court’s controlling holding that no-notice tax sales are jurisdictionally void and that the tax-title statute of limitations cannot cure a due-process failure — the analytical backbone of Utah tax-title challenges.
Related authorities
- mullane-v-central-hanover — notice must be “reasonably calculated” to reach the party.
- jones-v-flowers — additional steps when mailed notice is returned.
- mennonite-v-adams — interest-holders of record entitled to actual notice.
Applies in →
utah — and persuasive on due-process-notice generally.
Legal information, not legal advice. This page summarizes a court decision for educational purposes and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Verify against the primary opinion and consult a licensed attorney in the relevant jurisdiction before acting. Last verified 2026-06-02.