Idaho Code
Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 63-1006 (2026)

Hearing and issuance of tax deed. 

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IClegislature.idaho.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Hearing and issuance of tax deed. 

(1) When a record owner or owners or any party in interest upon whom a notice of pending issue of tax deed is served or who has actual knowledge of such notice or its contents fails, to appear or otherwise defend and answer at the time set for hearing in such notice and the county commissioners are satisfied that the county tax collector has fulfilled the requirements of section 63-1005, Idaho Code, the county commissioners shall, without further notice, immediately direct the county tax collector to issue and record a tax deed in favor of the county.

(2)  When a record owner or owners or any party in interest upon whom such notice is served or who has actual knowledge of such notice or its contents appears or answers at the date specified in such notice, the county commissioners shall hear evidence and witnesses and make a final decision in writing. Such final decision shall be mailed by registered or certified mail return receipt demanded upon all parties affected by its action. If the county commissioners shall find that the county tax collector has conformed to the requirements of section 63-1005, Idaho Code, and that a delinquency was owing on the property described and that such delinquency has not been paid, the county commissioners shall immediately direct the county tax collector to issue a tax deed in favor of the county. Such final decision shall include findings of fact and conclusions of law.
(3)  A record of the proceedings shall be kept and entered into the county minutes.
(4)  Any person who is aggrieved by a final decision of the county commissioners concerning the issuance of a tax deed is entitled to have that decision reviewed by the district court of the district wherein the county is located by filing a petition in the district court within thirty (30) days after receipt of the final decision of the county commissioners. Such filing does not itself stay enforcement of the county commissioners’ decision; however, the county commissioners may grant, or the reviewing court may order, a stay upon appropriate terms. Review shall be conducted by the court without a jury and shall be confined to the record in the county minutes. The court may reverse or modify the decision of the county commissioners if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the county commissioners’ findings, conclusions or decisions are:
(a)  Made upon unlawful procedure;
(b)  Clearly erroneous in view of reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole record; or
(c)  Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.
(5)  All costs and fees of any hearing or proceeding shall be awarded to the prevailing party or in the discretion of the reviewing court each party shall be responsible for their own costs and fees; provided however, the costs and fees shall not be ordered paid by any county or its officials in absence of a showing of gross negligence, gross nonfeasance or gross malfeasance by the county or its officers and a showing of substantial and definite injury to the petitioning party.
(6)  The form of the tax deed issued must contain the following items:
(a)  The name and address of the former record owner or owners;
(b)  The name of the county in whose favor the tax deed issues;
(c)  An accurate description of the property using a township, range, section and division of section, together with a statement as to acreage, or in the appropriate case, using block and lot numbers or as described in a city plat; and if appropriate, include the tax number;
(d)  A statement that the tax deed issues out of a delinquency and hearing; and
(e)  The tax deed must be signed by the county tax collector and acknowledged before the county recorder and shall be recorded as provided by law.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2012–2025 · leading case: Chavez v. Canyon Cnty., 271 P.3d 695 (Idaho 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Chavez v. Canyon Cnty., 271 P.3d 695 (Idaho 2012). · cites it 27× “Chavez responded pursuant to I.C. § 63-1006(2) by serving the County with an Answer and Objection to the Notices on October 8, 2009.”
Valiant Idaho, LLC v. JV L.L.C., 429 P.3d 168 (Idaho 2018). · cites it 4× “First, JV contends its redemption deed conveyed fee title under Idaho Code sections 63-1006 and 63-1009 (title theory) and is therefore senior to Valiant's mortgage.”
Floyd v. Bd. of Ada Cnty. Comm'rs, 434 P.3d 1265 (Idaho 2019). · cites it 7× “At the hearing, the prosecuting attorney introduced Floyd's letter and exhibits to the Board, stating: "Pursuant to Idaho Code 63-1006, I recommend that you consider the correspondence letters and exhibits from Mr.”
Floyd v. Bd of Ada Cnty. Commissioners (Idaho 2019). · cites it 3× “At the hearing, the prosecuting attorney introduced Floyd’s letter and exhibits to the Board, stating: “Pursuant to Idaho Code 63-1006, I recommend that you consider the correspondence letters and exhibits from Mr.”
Regan v. Owen (Idaho 2017). · cites it 2× “The Regans contend that the tax deed is void because the legal description of the Orphan Parcel in the tax deed does not meet the requirements of Idaho Code section 63-1006(6)(c). Specifically, the Regans argue that the Orphan Parcel tax deed does not include an acreage…”
Carelon Behavioral Health, Inc. v. State (Idaho 2025). · cites it 2× “Notably, judicial review of the county commissioner’s tax decision would have been available to Chavez, pursuant to Idaho Code section 63-1006, had Chavez timely pursued that course of action.”
Idaho Code § 63-1006(1): 1 case
Valiant Idaho, LLC v. JV L.L.C., 429 P.3d 168 (Idaho 2018). “First, JV contends its redemption deed conveyed fee title under Idaho Code sections 63-1006 and 63-1009 (title theory) and is therefore senior to Valiant's mortgage.”
Idaho Code § 63-1006(2): 3 cases
Chavez v. Canyon Cnty., 271 P.3d 695 (Idaho 2012). “Chavez responded pursuant to I.C. § 63-1006(2) by serving the County with an Answer and Objection to the Notices on October 8, 2009.”
Floyd v. Bd. of Ada Cnty. Comm'rs, 434 P.3d 1265 (Idaho 2019). “At the hearing, the prosecuting attorney introduced Floyd's letter and exhibits to the Board, stating: "Pursuant to Idaho Code 63-1006, I recommend that you consider the correspondence letters and exhibits from Mr.”
Floyd v. Bd of Ada Cnty. Commissioners (Idaho 2019). “At the hearing, the prosecuting attorney introduced Floyd’s letter and exhibits to the Board, stating: “Pursuant to Idaho Code 63-1006, I recommend that you consider the correspondence letters and exhibits from Mr.”
Idaho Code § 63-1006(4): 2 cases
Chavez v. Canyon Cnty., 271 P.3d 695 (Idaho 2012). “Chavez responded pursuant to I.C. § 63-1006(2) by serving the County with an Answer and Objection to the Notices on October 8, 2009.”
Floyd v. Bd. of Ada Cnty. Comm'rs, 434 P.3d 1265 (Idaho 2019). “At the hearing, the prosecuting attorney introduced Floyd's letter and exhibits to the Board, stating: "Pursuant to Idaho Code 63-1006, I recommend that you consider the correspondence letters and exhibits from Mr.”
Idaho Code § 63-1006(5): 1 case
Chavez v. Canyon Cnty., 271 P.3d 695 (Idaho 2012). “Chavez responded pursuant to I.C. § 63-1006(2) by serving the County with an Answer and Objection to the Notices on October 8, 2009.”
Idaho Code § 63-1006(6)(c): 1 case
Regan v. Owen (Idaho 2017). “The Regans contend that the tax deed is void because the legal description of the Orphan Parcel in the tax deed does not meet the requirements of Idaho Code section 63-1006(6)(c). Specifically, the Regans argue that the Orphan Parcel tax deed does not include an acreage…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.