Opinion ID: 2567660
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: A Claimant May Satisfy the Actual Possession Requirement Through a Tenant

Text: ¶18 The Parents claim that their possession of the Property was adverse to the legal title holder because the Property was continuously occupied by Qwest, a tenant in subordination to the Parents, not the Trusts. The Trusts argue that the Parents cannot satisfy the actual possession requirement because they never occupied the Property personally. The Trusts cited Pender v. Jackson [7] for the proposition that a lease is not a use of the property by which a claimant can satisfy the actual possession requirement. [8] The district court agreed and ruled that the Parents could not introduce evidence of adverse possession through their tenant. ¶19 We disagree with the district court's interpretation of Pender and hold that a claimant may satisfy the actual possession requirement by leasing property to a tenant. Notably, Pender was not a case involving a landlord and tenant. Instead, the claimant in Pender was a land speculator who purchased tax deeds and never occupied or made any use of the land, either personally or through a tenant. [9] In Pender, we disagreed with the claimant's contention that `holding the land for investment, speculation, lease, or the like' fulfills the actual possession and occupation requirement of adverse possession codified in Utah Code section 78-12-9. [10] We noted that [m]erely holding the land for speculation is the purpose for which the land is held and not the use of the land. [11] We denied the adverse claim because the necessary element of possession or occupation, as defined by the Utah statute, [was] not established. [12] ¶20 Unlike the claimant in Pender, the Parents did not merely hold the land for speculation in anticipation of a lease or a future sale. Instead, the Parents made actual use of the Property by signing rental agreements with the tenant, collecting and using the rental income, making repairs, and improving the Property. ¶21 Actual possession is a flexible term, and the use of property necessary to establish it will vary with the character of the property. This concept is certainly not novel or exclusive to Utah law: [P]ossession of land is the holding of, and exclusive exercise of, dominion over it. It is evident that this is not and cannot be uniform in every case, and that there may be degrees in the exclusiveness even of the exercise of ownership. The owner cannot occupy literally the whole tract  he cannot have an actual pedis possessio of all, nor hold it in the grasp of his hands. His possession must be indicated by other acts. The usual one is that of inclosure. But this cannot always be done, yet he may hold the possession in fact of uninclosed land by the exercise of such acts of ownership over it as are necessary to enjoy the ordinary use of which it is capable, and acquire the profits it yields in its present condition. Such acts, being continued and uninterrupted, will amount to actual possession; and, if under color of title or chain of right, will be adverse. [13] For example, a claimant to a rock quarry may satisfy the actual possession requirement by entering the land to quarry and remove rock; the claimant need not be domiciled on the quarry. [14] In the case of a rental property like that in dispute in this case, it would be incongruous to hold that a claimant must necessarily occupy the property personally, particularly when the utility and value in a rental property is in collecting rent from tenants. ¶22 We have only infrequently addressed the issue of adverse possession through a tenant. In each case, however, we assumed without discussion that a claimant could satisfy the actual possession requirement through a tenant and, if all other requirements were met, claim legal title to the property by adverse possession. [15] In the context of an unlawful detainer action to recover a possessory right in federally owned school land, we held that [a]fter the land has thus been subjected to the will and dominion of the claimant, there seems to be no sound reason why such claimant may not keep control through an agent or tenant. [16] In another early case, we held, without discussion, that the claimants' possession of several lots in person and by their tenants constituted open, notorious, and exclusive adverse possession. [17] The lack of discussion on the point may well be because no party in the cases advanced the contention that actual possession could not be met by renting the property to a tenant. Furthermore, our research reveals no case in which we denied a claimant's adverse possession claim because the claimant possessed the land through a tenant. ¶23 In addition to our caselaw, Utah statutory law provides that the possession of the tenant is the possession of the landlord. [18] While the most obvious purpose of the statute is to shield landlords from adverse possession claims by their tenants, its plain language supports our conclusion that whoever is acting as landlord to the tenant is in actual possession of the property for the purpose of an adverse possession claim. Thus, we agree with the Parents that a claimant may satisfy the actual possession requirement of an adverse possession claim by placing a tenant on the land and collecting the rent for the claimant's own benefit. ¶24 A claimant who places a tenant on the land must still meet all other requirements of adverse possession. Renting the property to a tenant and collecting the rent for the claimant's own use is not hostile to the legal title owner when it is done in subordination to the legal title owner. [19] Thus, a sublease or any lease recognizing the legal title owner will not meet the hostility requirement. In addition, the claimant must pay all taxes levied on the land, and his possession must be continuous for the statutory period. [20] ¶25 In this case, the district court ruled that the Parents could not, as a matter of law, introduce evidence of actual possession through their tenant, Qwest. Because we hold that a claimant may satisfy the actual possession requirement through a tenant, we reverse.