This opinion is subject to revision before final

publication in the Pacific Reporter

2018 UT 16

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF UTAH

JESSE and ALISON HAMMONS,

Appellants,

v.

WEBER COUNTY, WEBER COUNTY COMMISSION, JAN ZOGMAISTER,

KERRY GIBSON, and MATTHEW BELL,

Appellees.

No. 20151074

Filed May 2, 2018

On Direct Appeal

Second District, Ogden

The Honorable Michael D. DiReda

No. 140905091

Attorneys:

T.R. Morgan, Scott L. Hansen, Ogden, for appellants

Barton H. Kunz II, Salt Lake City, for appellees

CHIEF JUSTICE DURRANT authored the opinion of the Court, in 

which ASSOCIATE CHIEF JUSTICE LEE, JUSTICE HIMONAS,

JUSTICE PEARCE, and JUDGE BATES joined.

Due to her retirement, JUSTICE DURHAM did not participate herein; 

and DISTRICT COURT JUDGE MATTHEW BATES sat.

JUSTICE PETERSEN became a member of the Court on

November 17, 2017, after oral argument in this matter and 

accordingly did not participate.
HAMMONS v. WEBER COUNTY

Opinion of the Court 

2

CHIEF JUSTICE DURRANT, opinion of the Court:

Introduction

¶1 The Property Tax Act1 establishes a tax exemption for 

primary residential property.2 In 2007 and 2008, Jesse and Alison 

Hammons paid taxes on their primary residence, but later learned 

that Weber County had not given them the residential exemption. In 

2012, they asked the county to refund their taxes or to apply what 

they considered to be the overpayment as a credit against future 

taxes. The county denied their request. After the Weber County Tax 

Review Committee and the Weber County Commission also denied 

their claims, the Hammonses filed a notice of claim with the county 

and a complaint with the district court. They claimed that the county 

had violated Utah Code sections 59-2-103 and 59-2-103.5. These 

sections establish the residential exemption and set forth procedures 

to obtain the exemption. The district court entered a judgment on the 

pleadings, dismissing the Hammonses’ causes of action.

¶2 The Property Tax Act affords taxpayers three avenues to 

challenge the assessment of their property taxes. Under Utah Code 

section 59-2-1004, a “taxpayer dissatisfied with the valuation or the 

equalization of the taxpayer’s real property” may appeal to the 

board of equalization within a prescribed time period. Section 

59-2-1327 provides that if a “person whose property is taxed claims 

the tax is unlawful, that person may pay the tax under protest to the 

county treasurer. The person may then bring an action in the district 

court against the officer or taxing entity to recover the tax or any 

portion of the tax paid under protest.” And under section 59-2-1321, 

a taxpayer may argue “that property has been either erroneously or 

illegally assessed,” and, after producing “sufficient evidence,” may 

receive a refund or a credit towards future taxes.

_____________________________________________________________

1 UTAH CODE §§ 59-2-101 to -1713.

2 Id. § 59-2-103. “As a general rule, when adjudicating a dispute 

we apply the version of the statute that was in effect ‘at the time of 

the events giving rise to [the] suit.’” Harvey v. Cedar Hills City, 2010 

UT 12, ¶ 12, 227 P.3d 256 (alteration in original) (citation omitted).

But because the differences between the 2007/2008 versions and the 

current version of the statutes are inconsequential in this case, we 

cite to the current version. 
Cite as: 2018 UT 16

Opinion of the Court

3

¶3 The Hammonses are not dissatisfied with the valuation or 

equalization of their property, and so their claims do not fall under 

section 1004. They did not pay the 2007 or 2008 taxes under protest, 

so their claims cannot fall under section 1327. So their challenges to 

the taxes they paid in 2007 and 2008 must fall under section 1321, 

which we have said requires taxpayers to point to an “error or 

illegality that is readily apparent from county records.”3 The 

Hammonses have not challenged this requirement, nor have they 

shown that the alleged errors or illegalities were readily apparent, so 

we affirm the judgment of the district court. 

Background

¶4 Jesse and Alison Hammons have a primary residence in 

Liberty, Utah. Although they have occupied the house since 2005, 

Weber County records listed a Clearfield post office box as the 

address for their property until 2008. The county gave the 

Hammonses the residential exemption on their property taxes in 

2005 and 2006, but in 2007 the county assessor flagged the 

Hammonses’ property as a possible non-primary residence, citing 

the fact that the Hammonses listed a post office box instead of a 

physical address. The assessor then sent the Hammonses a letter, 

requiring them to submit a signed statement of primary residence. 

The Hammonses did not receive the letter and did not submit the 

statement. The assessor reclassified the Hammonses’ property as 

non-primary residential, which resulted in the Hammonses losing 

their primary residential tax exemption for the 2007 tax year.

¶5 The Hammonses paid the 2007 taxes, but later realized that 

their property had been reclassified and that they had not received 

the residential exemption. They contacted the county and were told 

that it required a change of address form to have their property’s 

physical address listed on county records. They submitted the form 

in August 2008. They also asked for a refund of the taxes that had 

been paid due to the incorrect reclassification of their property, but 

were told that the time for appeal had passed.

¶6 Despite changing their address on county records, the 

Hammonses did not receive the primary residential exemption in 

2008. They again paid taxes on the full value of their property, and 

_____________________________________________________________

3 Woodbury Amsource, Inc. v. Salt Lake Cty., 2003 UT 28, ¶ 12, 73 

P.3d 362.
HAMMONS v. WEBER COUNTY

Opinion of the Court 

4

they again realized they had done so after they had paid. They 

contacted the county and this time were told that they had to submit 

a signed statement of primary residence in order to have their 

property reclassified as primary residential and receive the 

exemption. The Hammonses completed the signed statement of 

primary residence on April 23, 2009. The county changed their 

property’s tax exemption classification for the 2009 tax year.

¶7 In 2012, the Hammonses asked the county to refund the 

taxes they had overpaid in 2007 and 2008 or to apply their 

overpayment as a credit against current taxes. The county denied 

their request. The Hammonses appealed the county’s denial to the 

Weber County Tax Review Committee and the Weber County 

Commission. During the appeal process, the Hammonses learned 

that at the time they were seeking to correct the classification of their 

property, the county did not have an ordinance in place requiring a 

signed statement of primary residence.

¶8 The Hammonses then filed a notice of claim with the county 

and a complaint in the district court claiming that the county had 

violated Utah Code sections 59-2-103 and 59-2-103.5 by denying 

them the primary residential exemption and failing to notify them of 

overpaid taxes. They also alleged fraudulent non-disclosure, 

fraudulent concealment, negligent misrepresentation, unjust 

enrichment, negligence, and fraud. The district court entered a 

judgment on the pleadings, dismissing the Hammonses’ causes of 

action. They timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under Utah Code 

section 78A-3-102(3)(b).

Standard of Review

¶9 “Because we are reviewing a grant of a motion for judgment 

on the pleadings, this court accepts the factual allegations in the 

complaint as true; we then consider such allegations and all 

reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in a light most favorable to 

the plaintiff. We affirm the grant of such motion only if, as a matter 

of law, the plaintiff could not recover under the facts alleged.”4

Analysis

¶10 The Hammonses raise three claims on appeal. They first 

argue that the district court erred when it concluded that the county 

_____________________________________________________________

4 Healthcare Servs. Grp., Inc. v. Utah Dep’t of Health, 2002 UT 5, ¶ 3, 

40 P.3d 591 (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Cite as: 2018 UT 16

Opinion of the Court

5

assessor acted within the scope of his authority in reclassifying the 

Hammonses’ property as “non-primary residential.” Second, they 

argue that the district court erred in concluding that the county 

assessor could require a signed statement of primary residence as a 

condition of maintaining the residential exemption in 2008, before 

the county had passed an ordinance requiring such a statement. And 

third, they argue that they overpaid taxes in 2007 and 2008, that 

those taxes were erroneously and illegally assessed, and that they are 

therefore entitled to a refund or credit.

¶11 The Hammonses are somewhat limited in the claims they 

can bring by the Property Tax Act. The Act provides three avenues 

for challenging the assessment of property taxes: Utah Code sections 

59-2-1004, 59-2-1327, and 59-2-1321. Section 1004 provides an avenue 

for a taxpayer dissatisfied with the valuation or equalization of their 

property. The Hammonses’ claims clearly do not fall under section 

1004. Section 1327 requires that the taxpayer first “pay the tax under 

protest” before bringing an action in district court claiming that the 

tax is unlawful. The Hammonses did not pay the 2007 or 2008 taxes 

under protest, so their claims cannot be brought under section 1327. 

Finally, section 1321 allows a taxpayer to argue “that property has 

been either erroneously or illegally assessed” and, after producing 

“sufficient evidence,” may receive a refund or credit towards future 

taxes. Section 1321 is the only avenue available to the Hammonses,

and they have tried to make their claims fit within its narrow 

parameters. But because the errors and illegalities they allege are not 

“readily apparent from county records”5—a standard the 

Hammonses do not challenge on appeal—their claims fail and we 

therefore affirm the judgment of the district court.

I. The Hammonses’ Claims Fail Under Section 1321

¶12 Utah Code section 59-2-1321 provides that 

The county legislative body, upon sufficient evidence 

being produced that property has been either 

erroneously or illegally assessed, may order the county 

treasurer to allow the taxes on that part of the property 

erroneously or illegally assessed to be deducted before 

payment of taxes. Any taxes, interest, and costs paid 

more than once, or erroneously or illegally collected, 

_____________________________________________________________

5 Woodbury Amsource, Inc. v. Salt Lake Cty., 2003 UT 28, ¶ 12, 73 

P.3d 362.
HAMMONS v. WEBER COUNTY

Opinion of the Court 

6

may, by order of the county legislative body, be 

refunded by the county treasurer . . . .

In Woodbury Amsource, Inc. v. Salt Lake County, we explained that 

states passed statutes like section 1321 to ameliorate the 

“unnecessarily harsh” common law rule that “taxes when paid could 

not be recovered back unless paid under what amounted to duress 

or legal compulsion.”6 In other words, “[a] taxpayer who paid a tax 

voluntarily . . . could not receive a refund of the tax under any 

circumstances, even when the taxing authorities had committed 

blatant error.”7 Section 1321 allows taxpayers, like the Hammonses, 

who pay taxes voluntarily to receive a refund or tax credit when they 

can show blatant error. And in contrast to section 1327, which 

requires a taxpayer to pay under protest before challenging an 

unlawful tax, section 1321 “allows a taxpayer to obtain a refund 

without having paid under protest and without going to court. 

‘[T]he illegality of the tax is absolutely assumed,’ and only if the 

county refuses to provide the refund must the taxpayer go to district 

court to appeal the decision.”8 But the scope of section 1321 “is 

relatively narrow.”9

¶13 The taxes at issue in section 1321 are limited to those “which 

it is clear the county had no authority to collect, and, in case they are 

collected, has no legal right to retain them.”10 “Thus, in order for a 

taxpayer to receive a refund under section 59-2-1321, . . . the taxpayer 

must be able to point to a specific double payment, error or illegality 

that is readily apparent from county records.”11 In Woodbury 

Amsource, we explained that “readily apparent from county records” 

means that “the county treasurer has the information necessary to 

make the determination at hand” and “the county commissioners 

need only receive some form of notification from the taxpayer to be 

‘as well prepared to look into the matter as they would be by the 

_____________________________________________________________

6 2003 UT 28, ¶ 9, 73 P.3d 362 (quoting Neilson v. San Pete Cty., 123 

P. 334, 338 (Utah 1912)).

7 Id.

8 Id. ¶ 11 (alteration in original) (quoting Neilson, 123 P. at 338).

9 Id. ¶ 9.

10 Id. ¶ 11 (quoting Neilson, 123 P. at 338).

11 Id. ¶ 12.
Cite as: 2018 UT 16

Opinion of the Court

7

filing of a more formal claim against the county’ in court.”12 This is a 

“limited circumstance where a taxpayer can point to an error of fact 

or law in the collection of the tax, or a payment more than once.”13 It 

is not a situation where the taxpayer “disputes the legality of the tax

and wishes to bring suit”—such disputes fall under section 1327 and 

require the taxpayer first pay the tax “under protest.”14

¶14 In an attempt to fit their challenges under section 1321, the 

Hammonses contend that “the taxes collected in 2007 and 2008 were 

illegal and erroneous to the extent that taxes were overpaid because 

the residential exemption was illegally removed.” They then attempt 

to point to “facts which are readily apparent on the county 

records”—specifically that “the county assessor reclassified the 

Hammons[es]’ property without involvement of the board of 

equalization and required a signed statement of primary residence 

prior to the enactment of the ordinance required by Utah Code 

[section] 59-2-103.5.” But they misunderstand section 1321’s 

function. 

¶15 As noted above, section 1321 applies only when the answer 

to a relevant legal dispute is clearly established in our law. Here, we 

have never stated that a county assessor cannot reclassify property 

without approval from the board of equalization, nor is Utah law 

clear on that point. And courts have never clearly held that a county 

cannot require a signed statement of primary residence without 

enactment of an ordinance. So, contrary to the Hammonses’

contention, it is “not clear the county had no authority to collect” in 

_____________________________________________________________

12 Id. ¶ 11 (quoting Neilson, 123 P. at 338). The requirement that an 

error or illegality be “readily apparent from the county records,” as

articulated by the Woodbury Amsourse court, may establish a higher 

bar for taxpayers seeking relief under section 1321 than the statute 

itself sets. The plain language of Utah Code section 59-2-1321 does 

not require errors or illegalities be “readily apparent from county 

records.” See UTAH CODE § 59-2-1321. Rather, it requires only that

“sufficient evidence be[] produced” showing that the “property has 

been either erroneously or illegally assessed.” Id. But because neither 

party has asked us to reexamine our precedent, we analyze this case 

under existing precedent.

13 Woodbury Amsource, 2003 UT 28, ¶ 15.

14 Id.
HAMMONS v. WEBER COUNTY

Opinion of the Court 

8

this case and, thus, the Hammonses cannot “point to an error of fact 

or law in the collection” of the tax.15

¶16 Furthermore, under Woodbury Amsource, their arguments are 

not facts—or errors—readily apparent from county records. Instead, 

the Hammonses have raised unanswered legal disputes. They point 

only to the fact that they listed “FALL 2005” as the date of occupancy 

on their signed statement of primary residence. This would not 

signal to the county treasurer or the county commissioners that the 

county assessor was without authority in reclassifying the 

Hammonses’ property or that the County could not require a signed 

statement of primary residence. So what they are asking of us—to 

resolve whether the county assessor could reclassify residential 

property and whether the County could require a signed statement 

of primary residence before passing the necessary ordinance—

exceeds the scope of section 1321.16

Conclusion

¶17 The Hammonses’ challenge to their 2007 and 2008 taxes 

must fall under section 1321. As we stated in Woodbury Amsource, 

taxpayers bringing section 1321 claims must be able to point to a

clearly-established error or illegality, and one that is readily 

apparent from county records. The Hammonses cannot do this, so 

we affirm the judgment of the district court.

_____________________________________________________________

15 Id.

16 See id. ¶ 19.