Massa, J.
Tom Bonnell purchased a 35-foot-wide strip of land from the Pulaski County Board of Commissioners, and Ruby and Douglas Cotner brought this action to quiet title, claiming that they had previously acquired ownership of a section of that land via adverse possession. The trial court disagreed, finding that the prior sale of the Strip by tax deed extinguished any interest the Cotners may have had. Nevertheless, the trial court awarded the Cotners a prescriptive easement on certain outbuildings erected on the Strip, and both parties appealed. We affirm the denial of the Cotners’ adverse possession claim, and reverse the grant of a prescriptive easement, finding that the sale of the Strip by tax deed extinguished any and all interest the Cotners previously possessed.
….
Perfecting an adverse possessory interest, however, does not automatically entitle the Cotners to judgment in their favor. “[T]he doctrine of adverse possession entitles a person without title to obtain ownership to a parcel of land upon clear and convincing proof of control, intent, notice, and duration . . . .” Fraley, 829 N.E.2d at 486 (emphasis added). Acquiring ownership by adverse possession does not render operative all the rights and responsibilities of the record title holder; indeed, as demonstrated by the facts of this case, the adverse possessor would first have to succeed in an action to quiet title in order to become the legally acknowledged owner of the property. See App. at 22—26; Ind. Code § 32-30-2-20 (2014) (listing an adverse possessor as one type of plaintiff entitled to bring a quiet title action); Ind. Code § 32-30—3-17 (stating that the final judgment in a quiet title action shall be entered by the county recorder in the “Quiet Title Record”). Moreover, although the Cotners’ predecessors-in-interest had a good faith belief that they were paying taxes on the disputed portion of the Strip, it is undisputed that they were not in fact paying those taxes. Accordingly, since the record title holder also failed to pay the requisite property taxes, the entire Strip was subject to tax sale by Pulaski County. & Ind. Code § 6-1.1-24-1(a), (c).
….
Here, although the Cotners’ predecessors-in-interest acquired ownership of the disputed portion of the Strip in 1978, they did not seek to quiet title and formalize that ownership. Thus, by statute, the Cotners were not entitled to any more than publication notice of the two tax sales in 1993 and 2011. And the very issuance of those tax deeds is prima facie evidence of the validity of the notice given in those tax sales, evidence that has not been rebutted by the Cotners. See Ind. Code § 6-1.1-25-4.6(g) (“The deed is prima facie evidence of: (l) the regularity of the sale of the real property described in the deed; (2) the regularity of all proper proceedings; and (3) valid title in fee simple in the grantee of the deed”). There is also no evidence in the record that the Cotners or anyone else contested the validity of those tax sales, as permitted by Indiana Code section 6-1.1-25-16. Moreover, the statutory text is uncompromising: the Pulaski County Board of Commissioners obtained “fee simple absolute” in the Strip in 2011, free and clear of any encumbrances. Ind. Code § 6—1.1-25-4.6(g); w Ind. Code § 6-1.1—25-14 (“An unrecorded instrument does not affect the plaintiff’s title as established by the court’s [tax deed] decree”).
Accordingly, under the plain text of the Tax Deed Statutes, in 1993 and again in 2011, the Cotners were divested of their ownership interest based on adverse possession of the disputed section of the Strip.
….
Conclusion
After more than three years of litigation and two vigorous appeals, Mr. Bonnell now owns a 35—foot—by—100—foot section of land in the Cotners’ backyard, predominately covered with a pole barn, which Bonnell values at approximately $890. We affirm the denial of the Cotners’ claim of adverse possession in the disputed portion of the Strip, and reverse the grant of a prescriptive easement in the Cotners’ encroaching outbuildings.
Rush, C.J., and Dickson, Rucker, JJ., concur. David, J ., did not participate.