Olsen v. State (Utah Ct. App. 2016)

Citation: 2016 UT App 194 · Court: Utah Court of Appeals (No. 20150490-CA) · Decided: Sept. 15, 2016 · Opinion: Voros, J. (Roth and Mortensen, JJ., concurring)

Case page. Legal information, not legal advice. Last verified: 2026-10-16. Source: Utah courts’ published opinion PDF (https://legacy.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/Olsen%20v.%20State20160915.pdf), retrieved 2026-10-16. Pacific Reporter citation not verified (needs_verification).

Facts

After a Summit County tax sale, nearly USD 275,000 of excess proceeds owed to the former owner went to the Unclaimed Property Division. Bradley Olsen, assignee of the owner’s homeowners association, obtained a default judgment of USD 9,697.28 and had a constable conduct an execution sale of “all claims and rights, including any right of action, to all value of funds held by the Utah State Treasurer Unclaimed Property Division.” Olsen, the sole bidder, credit-bid about USD 10,000 and then claimed the entire USD 275,000. The Division would pay him only as a creditor; the district court granted the State summary judgment.

Holding

Affirmed. The Unclaimed Property Act’s claim procedure “constitutes a creditor’s exclusive remedy to obtain the debtor’s unclaimed property,” and Utah Code § 63G-7-603(2) (“Execution, attachment, or garnishment may not issue against a governmental entity”) applies whether the State owns the property or merely possesses it; the writ of execution issued against the Division “violates that statute.”

Reasoning

• The Act lets “a creditor” claim and receive the principal amount owed, so Olsen had an adequate statutory remedy for his full judgment.
• Olsen’s distinction between the right “to all value of funds” and the funds themselves “cuts too fine.”
• In a footnote the court added that a writ of execution reaches “property in the possession or under the control of the defendant” (URCP 64E(a)); property held by a third person is reached by garnishment (URCP 64D).
• Applying § 63G-7-603 is not an impermissible collateral attack on the execution.

Practical impact

An execution-sale purchaser of a claim against government-held money acquires nothing collectible beyond what the Unclaimed Property Act allows the creditor. Buying a former owner’s tax-sale surplus at a constable’s sale for a fraction of its value does not work in Utah; assignments were expressly left open. For execution practice generally, use the correct writ (execution vs. garnishment) for property in third-party hands.

Good-law status

No citator check run this session (needs_verification). The current text of § 63G-7-603(2) was not re-retrieved (needs_verification).

Applies in →

utah, surplus-funds, court-ordered-administrative-and-creditor-sales