Opinion ID: 2543820
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Class of Recipients

Text: ¶ 16 Having determined that mailed notice is required under section 27-12-102.4 regardless of whether a county publishes notice, we now turn to the question of to whom the County was required to provide mailed notice in this case. In its order granting summary judgment to the County and the Bleazards, the district court held that the County was not required to send mailed notice to the State because section 27-12-102.4 mandated mailed notice only to abutting landowners whose ownership was indicated on the county assessor's rolls, and the State was not an abutting property owner on the rolls of the Tooele County Assessor. ¶ 17 Contrary to the district court's interpretation, however, section 27-12-102.4's mailed notice provision does not limit its class of intended recipients to abutting landowners whose ownership is indicated on the rolls of the county assessor. Rather, the provision directs counties to mail notice to all abutting landowners of record, using each respective landowner's contact information as listed on the county assessor's rolls to address the notices for mailing. The provision states: No county road shall be . . . vacated, unless notice of the pendency of the petition . . . be given . . . by mailing such notice to all owners of record of land abutting the county road proposed to be vacated addressed to the mailing addresses appearing on the rolls of the county assessor of the county wherein the land is located. Utah Code Ann. § 27-12-102.4 (emphasis added). Thus, it is clear from the plain language of the statute that the district court erred by limiting section 27-12-102.4's mailed notice requirement to abutting landowners whose contact information is listed on the rolls of the county assessor. Id. The terms on the rolls of the county assessor comprise only one part of the larger clause addressed to the mailing addresses appearing on the rolls of the county assessor, and that clause indicates the place to which such notices should be sent without restricting in any way the scope of the parties that shall be noticed. Id. ¶ 18 Consequently, the relevant inquiry becomes not whether a landowner's contact information is listed on the rolls of the county assessor, but whether the landowner qualifies as a member of the class to which the county is required to provide mailed notice. To determine the parameters of this class, we again turn to the plain language of section 27-12-102.4, which, as noted, requires that mailed notice be given to all owners of record of land abutting the county road proposed to be vacated. Id. Thus, a county intending to vacate its interests in a road must send mailed notice to parties that satisfy two conditions, i.e., to parties who are (1) owners of record of land that (2) abut[s] the county road proposed to be vacated. Id. To assess whether a given landowner satisfies these conditions, however, we must first construe each term according to its ordinary and accepted meaning. Nelson v. Salt Lake County, 905 P.2d 872, 875 (Utah 1995); see also, e.g., Arredondo v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., Inc., 2001 UT 29, ¶ 12, 24 P.3d 928; Zoll & Branch, P.C. v. Asay, 932 P.2d 592, 594 (Utah 1997).
¶ 19 Owner of record is a legal term that denotes a property owner in whose name the title appears in the public records. Black's Law Dictionary 1131 (7th ed.1999). Under most circumstances, such records are located in the place designated by the applicable recording act. In Utah, for instance, landowners record title to their property in the office of the recorder of the county where the real property is located, Utah Code Ann. § 57-3-101(1) (2000), and this act of recording serves the purpose of impart[ing] notice to all persons of the owner's interest in the property. Id. § 57-3-101. Where state sovereign lands are involved, however, notice by recording with a designated government official is unnecessary because ownership of the property is vested in the state upon entrance into the Union, and the state's designation of those lands in its constitution, statutes, or otherwise therefore becomes the state's public record of its sovereign ownership. [4] As the United States Supreme Court has stated, It is settled law in this country that lands underlying navigable waters within a state belong to the State in its sovereign capacity.... United States v. Holt State Bank, 270 U.S. 49, 54, 46 S.Ct. 197, 70 L.Ed. 465 (1926). Consequently, a party qualifies as an owner of record under section 27-12-102.4 of the Utah Code if (1) the party has recorded title to the land at issue with the county recorder, or if (2) the land at issue is state sovereign land and is designated as such by public record.
¶ 20 Like owner of record, the word abut is a term commonly used in the context of property law. In its most ordinary sense, the term is employed to describe properties that join at a border or boundary. Black's Law Dictionary 10 (7th ed.1999). For example, in Farnsworth v. Soter's, Inc ., we observed: `[A]but' . . . `conveys the idea of bordering on, [or] bounded by, with nothing intervening.' 24 Utah 2d 199, 200, 468 P.2d 372, 373 (1970) (citation omitted) (emphasis omitted); see also 1 C.J.S. Abut (1985). Accordingly, land that joins, borders, or bounds a county road proposed to be vacated, with nothing intervening, is considered to be land that abut[s] the county road under section 27-12-102.4.