## Facts

- Parents acquired commercial property in Provo, Utah, and leased it to a telecommunications company; the tenant (later Qwest) continuously occupied the property for decades.
- In 1982–83, the Parents executed trust documents and quitclaim deeds that transferred record title to multiple family trusts benefiting their descendants; Richard (a son) served as trustee for most trusts.
- After the transfers, the Parents continued to operate as owner-landlords: they collected and reported rent as their income, made repairs at the tenant’s request, negotiated and signed lease renewals listing themselves as owners, and paid or arranged payment of property taxes.
- In 1991, the Parents asked Richard to reconvey the property so they could donate it to their church; Richard refused.
- The Parents continued to collect rent and manage the property without interference until around 2000, when Richard began asserting control consistent with the trusts’ record title (including directing rent to the trusts).
- In 2001, the Parents sued Richard, the trusts, and Qwest to quiet title based on adverse possession.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the trusts, ruling the Parents could not satisfy “actual possession” because the tenant, not the Parents, physically possessed the property; it also denied the Parents’ summary-judgment motion.
- The Parents appealed; defendants cross-appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether “actual possession” for adverse possession can be established through a tenant’s occupancy when the claimant acts as landlord and collects rent for the claimant’s own benefit.
2. Whether, on undisputed facts, the Parents established the remaining adverse-possession elements (hostility, open and notorious possession, continuity for the statutory period, and statutory tax-payment compliance) as a matter of law.

## Decision

- The Utah Supreme Court reversed the summary judgment for the trusts and reversed the denial of summary judgment to the Parents.
- The court held that placing a tenant on the property and collecting rent for the claimant’s own benefit may constitute “actual possession and use” sufficient for adverse possession.
- The court concluded the Parents’ conduct satisfied all adverse-possession elements on the record presented.
- The case was remanded with instructions to enter summary judgment quieting title in the Parents and for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

## Legal Principles

- “Actual possession” for adverse possession does not require the claimant’s personal physical occupation when the property is ordinarily possessed through a tenant; a tenant’s possession can be attributed to the landlord-claimant who installed the tenant and receives the rents.
- Hostility may be shown by acts inconsistent with record ownership, including continuing to treat the property as one’s own after a demand for reconveyance is refused.
- Open and notorious possession may be established through outward landlord acts such as negotiating leases as owner, directly dealing with the tenant, and paying or arranging payment of property taxes.
- Continuous possession is satisfied when the adverse landlord control and tenant occupancy persist for the statutory period.
- When material facts are undisputed and the elements are met, adverse possession may be resolved as a matter of law on summary judgment.

## Conclusion

The Utah Supreme Court held that a claimant can satisfy adverse possession’s actual-possession requirement through a tenant’s occupancy when the claimant exercises owner-like control and collects rent for personal benefit; because the Parents also proved hostility, openness, continuity, and tax compliance, they were entitled to summary judgment quieting title in themselves.


Allred ex rel. Jensen v. Allred, 182 P.3d 337 (Utah 2008)