Utah Court of Appeals
2024 UT App 179 (click for full text of opinion)
The Utah Court of Appeals distinguished the legal duty of county recorders to accurately record instruments depicting record title, even when conflicting, while rejecting a petition to require the recorder to confirm legal title by altering or removing previously recorded instruments.
Golden Spike is a nonprofit organization that was deeded land on which the historical transcontinental railroad was originally built in Box Elder County. This land is bordered by various separately owned parcels, and in 1934, the owner of an adjacent parcel drafted a warranty deed using imprecise terminology to exclude the railroad property as a remainder. Then, in 1939, the then-county recorder prepared a tax deed for the adjacent parcel based on a misunderstanding of the imprecise terminology in the 1934 deed, which mistakenly failed to exclude 150 feet of the railroad property. This same mistaken description was later used in subsequent deeds which have been subdivided over the years resulting in several deeds that overlap with Golden Spike’s interest.
After Golden Spike examined county ownership plats and other land records and identified various “errors,” it approached the County Recorder (Montgomery), who refused to engage in any discussion or take any action to correct the errors. Golden Spike filed a lawsuit against several parties, which included a request for a writ of mandamus against Montgomery. The district court dismissed Golden Spike’s claim for mandamus against Montgomery, and Golden Spike appealed.
The Utah Court of Appeals reversed in part, and affirmed in part, the district court’s ruling, separating its analysis into two parts, corresponding to Golden Spike’s two claims.
The court reversed the district court’s dismissal of the claim insofar as it pertained to the recorder’s statutory duty to accurately depict title. It found that Golden Spike had a valid argument that Montgomery failed to perform a non-discretionary, ministerial duty of his office—that is, the duty to accurately depict record ownership on the county’s ownership plats. The court rejected the district court’s conclusion that Golden Spike had other options, such as a lawsuit for a declaratory judgment. It reasoned that a mandamus petition is the appropriate remedy for compelling a public official to perform a simple, non-discretionary task.
However, the Court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the claim insofar as it relates to a duty of the recorder to “correct” the chain of title. It held that Golden Spike was asking the County Recorder to perform a duty he does not have the legal authority to perform. A county recorder’s job is to maintain the records as they are submitted; they are explicitly prohibited by law from altering, changing, or obliterating recorded instruments. The Court clarified that the responsibility for resolving conflicting claims to legal title rests with the courts, not the county recorder. A recorder’s duty in a dispute is to reflect the existence of conflicting claims on the plat until a court issues a ruling that “quiets” the title. The Court also found no legal basis for Golden Spike’s request that the recorder be ordered to remove parcels from the county’s tax system.
