## Facts

- Seven parcels in Paragonah, Utah were owned by Jonathan and Amy Prothero, who both died intestate (1953 and 1958) with no probate; the property passed to their heirs as tenants in common.
- The siblings had an understanding that the family member occupying the home/farm could live there rent-free, while paying taxes and maintaining the property without impairing other heirs’ interests.
- After Amy’s death, two sons occupied the property successively; during the later occupancy, some property taxes went unpaid.
- In 1961, Mary gave Lewis deeds to the property based on Lewis’s promise to conduct probate so the heirs would receive their inheritances; Lewis did not do so.
- In 1967, the county offered the property at a tax sale due to delinquent taxes; Lewis purchased it for $55.01 and received a tax deed to himself and his wife, Alene, as joint tenants.
- Lewis did not inform the other cotenant-heirs of the tax purchase or that he claimed exclusive ownership.
- In 1974, when Mary proposed improving the home, Lewis discouraged it without disclosing his claimed exclusive title.
- In 1976, Lewis first told Mary he and Alene claimed to own the property outright; in 1977, he ordered Mary to leave and threatened to involve law enforcement if she returned.
- Mary filed a quiet title action seeking recognition of the surviving heirs’ cotenancy interests; the trial court held Lewis’s tax purchase did not extinguish the other cotenants’ interests, rejected limitations and adverse possession defenses, and quieted title recognizing Lewis and Alene as holding only a one-fourth interest jointly.

## Issues

1. Whether a cotenant can extinguish other cotenants’ interests by purchasing the common property at a tax sale and claiming exclusive title.
2. Whether the statute of limitations applicable to tax titles barred the non-purchasing cotenants’ quiet title claims.
3. Whether the purchasing cotenant acquired the others’ interests by adverse possession, including whether there was a legally sufficient ouster.

## Decision

- The Utah Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s quiet title decree.
- A cotenant’s tax-sale purchase of commonly owned property is presumed to be for the benefit of all cotenants and does not, without more, cut off their interests.
- The tax-title limitations period did not bar the other cotenants’ claims under these facts.
- Lewis failed to prove a clear ouster or other conduct sufficient to establish adverse possession against his cotenants before his explicit assertion of exclusive ownership.
- Alene, as a joint tenant on the tax deed, acquired no greater rights than Lewis against the other cotenants; Lewis and Alene held only a one-fourth interest jointly, with the remaining interests held in common by the other heirs.

## Legal Principles

- A tenant in common who pays more than a proportionate share of taxes is generally entitled to contribution, not an enlarged or hostile title obtained by a tax-sale purchase.
- When a cotenant purchases common property at a tax sale, the purchaser ordinarily holds the tax title in a trustee-like capacity for the other cotenants upon their payment of their proportionate share.
- Cotenants stand in a relationship requiring fair dealing; a cotenant in possession or managing common affairs must not secretly obtain a tax title to defeat co-owners.
- Possession by one cotenant is presumed consistent with cotenancy; adverse possession against cotenants requires clear, unequivocal acts or declarations amounting to an ouster and giving unmistakable notice of an exclusive claim.
- Limitations defenses tied to tax titles and adverse possession do not run against non-possessing cotenants until a hostile, exclusive claim is clearly communicated or made notorious in a manner sufficient to constitute ouster.

## Conclusion

The court held that a cotenant could not convert a shared inheritance into exclusive ownership by quietly buying the property at a tax sale; without clear notice and ouster, neither tax-title limitations nor adverse possession defeated the other heirs’ cotenancy interests, and the tax deed was treated as held for the common benefit.


Massey v. Prothero, 664 P.2d 1176 (Utah 1983)