Justia Utah Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A group of landowners in Summit County, Utah, challenged a proposed ballot measure to incorporate a new municipality called West Hills. The sponsor of the incorporation, Derek Anderson, had modified the proposed boundaries after the statutory deadline for landowners to request exclusion from the new municipality had passed. As a result, certain landowners whose properties were added late were unable to seek exclusion, even though similarly situated landowners had previously been allowed to do so.The landowners filed suit in the Third District Court, Silver Summit, arguing that the Municipal Incorporation Code, as applied, violated the Uniform Operation of Laws Clause of the Utah Constitution. The district court granted summary judgment for the landowners, finding the code unconstitutional as applied and invalidating the certification of the West Hills ballot measure. The court determined that the plaintiffs were “specified landowners” who would have been entitled to exclusion if their properties had been added earlier, and that the legislature’s interest in certainty did not justify the disparate treatment.The sponsor then filed an emergency petition for extraordinary relief with the Supreme Court of the State of Utah, seeking to overturn the district court’s order before the upcoming election. The Utah Supreme Court, after expedited briefing and oral argument, denied the petition for extraordinary relief. The court held that, under the unique circumstances, it would not exercise its discretion to issue a writ due to the potential disruption and confusion in the election process, including the risk of voter suppression and interference with electioneering efforts. The denial was without prejudice to the sponsor’s ability to pursue an appeal or interlocutory review of the district court’s order. View "Anderson v. Bates" on Justia Law

Talisker Finance, LLC and its affiliates defaulted on a $150 million loan secured by real property in Utah. The lenders, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and Midtown Acquisitions L.P., foreclosed on the collateral and purchased it at two sheriff’s sales, but the sale proceeds did not satisfy the debt. Talisker later discovered that the lenders had entered into a Common Interest Agreement with the court-appointed receiver, allegedly colluded to depress the sale price, and deterred potential bidders. Talisker claimed that the lenders bundled properties in a way that made them less attractive and that the receiver stalled a third party’s interest in purchasing some of the collateral.The Third District Court, Summit County, reviewed Talisker’s complaint seeking equitable relief from the deficiency judgments, arguing that the lenders’ conduct violated Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 69B(d) and common law principles. The district court accepted Talisker’s factual allegations as true for the purpose of the motion to dismiss but found that Talisker had broadly waived its rights related to the foreclosure process in the loan documents. The court concluded that the lenders’ actions, while possibly unfair, were not unlawful under the terms of the agreements and dismissed the complaint.On direct appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Utah affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The court held that Talisker’s waivers in the loan documents were broad and explicit enough to encompass all rights under Rule 69B(d), including the requirement that property be sold in parcels likely to bring the highest price. The court further held that Talisker had also waived any equitable or common law claims related to the foreclosure sales. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s ruling, finding no error in its conclusion that Talisker’s waivers precluded relief. View "TALISKER PARTNERSHIP v. MIDTOWN ACQUISITIONS" on Justia Law

A Colorado-based company applied to the Utah state engineer for permission to divert 55,000 acre-feet of water annually from the Green River in Utah, intending to pipe it across Wyoming for use in Colorado. The company proposed to use the water along Colorado’s Front Range but had not finalized a delivery location or obtained any approvals from Colorado authorities. The application was subject to both the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact, which governs interstate water allocations, and Utah’s statutes regulating water appropriation and export.After receiving the application, the Utah state engineer published notice, received protests, and held an administrative hearing. The engineer ultimately denied the application, finding that the company had not demonstrated compliance with Utah’s Export Statute, particularly the requirement to show that the water could be beneficially used in Colorado. The engineer also noted the absence of any guarantee from Colorado that the water would be counted against its compact allocation. The company’s request for reconsideration was denied by default. The company then sought de novo review in the Eighth District Court, Daggett County.The district court granted summary judgment for the state engineer, ruling that the Upper Compact did not preempt Utah’s water laws and that the applicant failed to show beneficial use as required by Utah’s Export Statute. The court also found, in the alternative, that Colorado was a necessary and indispensable party that could not be joined. On direct appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Utah affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that Utah’s Export Statute is not preempted by the Upper Compact and that the applicant failed to establish a reason to believe the exported water could be beneficially used in Colorado. View "Water Horse v. Wilhelmsen" on Justia Law

Two companies each owned a one-half undivided interest in the subsurface estate (sand, gravel, and clay) of a small parcel of land, while one of them, Toll, also owned the surface estate. Toll developed the parcel as part of a larger project, excavating soil from parts of the parcel and using it as fill on the same parcel to achieve the desired grade and density. The other company, Genesis, alleged that Toll had removed and transferred soil from the parcel to third parties without compensation, and also claimed that Toll’s use of the soil on-site interfered with Genesis’s rights.After discovery, Toll moved for summary judgment in the Fourth District Court, Provo, arguing there was no evidence it had exported soil from the parcel and that Genesis was not entitled to compensation for soil used on-site. Genesis conceded it lacked evidence of off-site removal but argued that a jury could infer such removal due to Toll’s exclusive control of relevant information. Genesis also argued it was entitled to compensation for Toll’s on-site use of the soil, claiming this interfered with its rights or unjustly enriched Toll. The district court granted summary judgment to Toll, finding no evidence of off-site removal and holding that, under Utah law and persuasive Washington precedent, a surface owner may use soil on-site without compensating the subsurface co-owner unless the soil is exported.On direct appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Utah affirmed the district court’s decision. The Court held that Genesis failed to provide evidence supporting its claim that Toll removed soil from the parcel, and that mere speculation or attacks on Toll’s credibility were insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact. The Court further held that Genesis was not entitled to compensation for Toll’s on-site use of the soil, as such use did not constitute actionable interference with Genesis’s subsurface rights under the deed or common law. The summary judgment in favor of Toll was affirmed. View "Genesis Aggregates B v. Toll Southwest" on Justia Law

A group of residents sought to challenge a Tooele County zoning ordinance that changed the designation of a parcel of land in Erda from agricultural to planned-community zoning, enabling its development. The residents, acting as referendum sponsors, attempted to gather enough signatures to place the ordinance on the ballot for possible repeal, aiming to preserve the land’s agricultural status. Their efforts were complicated by the COVID-19 pandemic and related executive orders, which they argued hindered their ability to collect signatures. Despite requesting permission to use electronic signatures, their request was denied, and they ultimately failed to meet the required signature threshold as determined by the County Clerk.The sponsors then filed suit in the Third District Court, Tooele County, against both the County and the Governor, challenging the signature threshold and the denial of electronic signatures. During the litigation, the area containing the property was incorporated as the City of Erda, transferring land-use authority from the County to the new city. The district court granted summary judgment to the County, finding the Clerk had correctly applied the signature threshold, and granted judgment on the pleadings to the Governor, rejecting the constitutional claims. The sponsors appealed.The Supreme Court of the State of Utah reviewed the case and determined that it was moot. The court held that, because the property is now within the City of Erda and subject to its zoning authority, a referendum repealing the Tooele County ordinance would have no legal effect on the property’s current zoning. The court found that it could not provide meaningful relief to the sponsors, as Erda has enacted its own zoning ordinances for the property. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal as moot. View "Haney v. Tooele County" on Justia Law

Two companies each owned a one-half undivided interest in the subsurface estate (specifically, sand, gravel, and clay) of a small parcel of land, while one of them also owned the entire surface estate. The surface owner developed the parcel by excavating soil and using it as fill on the same parcel to achieve the desired grade and density for construction. The subsurface co-owner sued, alleging that the surface owner had removed and transferred soil off-site without compensation, and also claimed entitlement to compensation for the on-site use of the soil, arguing that such use interfered with its rights.The Fourth District Court reviewed the case after discovery. The surface owner moved for summary judgment, presenting evidence that no soil was removed from the parcel and that all excavated soil was used on-site. The subsurface co-owner conceded it had no evidence that soil was exported off-site but argued that a jury could infer such removal due to the surface owner’s exclusive control of relevant information. The district court found no genuine dispute of material fact regarding off-site removal and held that, under Utah law and persuasive Washington precedent, a surface owner is entitled to use soil for on-site development without compensating the subsurface owner, unless the soil is exported. The court granted summary judgment and dismissed all claims.On direct appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Utah affirmed the district court’s decision. The Court held that the subsurface co-owner failed to provide evidence supporting its claim of off-site removal, and that the surface owner’s on-site use of soil did not constitute actionable interference with the subsurface rights. The Court clarified that, absent an agreement to the contrary, a surface owner may use subsurface materials for on-site development without owing compensation to a subsurface co-owner, provided there is no interference with the latter’s right to remove those materials. The summary judgment in favor of the surface owner was affirmed. View "State v. Wilcox" on Justia Law

Talisker Finance, LLC and its affiliates defaulted on a $150 million loan secured by real property, which they had borrowed to develop parcels in Utah. After several loan modifications and assignments, the lenders—Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and Midtown Acquisitions L.P.—foreclosed on the collateral and purchased it at two sheriff’s sales, where they were the only bidders. The sale proceeds did not satisfy the debt, and the lenders continued to pursue the deficiency. Later, Talisker discovered information suggesting that the lenders, in coordination with a court-appointed receiver, may have taken actions to depress the sale price, including deterring potential bidders and bundling properties in a way that made them less attractive.Talisker filed suit in the Third District Court, Summit County, seeking equitable relief from the deficiency judgments, alleging that the lenders’ conduct during the foreclosure process violated Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 69B(d) and constituted fraud or grossly inequitable conduct. The lenders moved to dismiss, arguing that Talisker had broadly waived any rights or defenses related to the foreclosure process in the loan documents. The district court accepted Talisker’s factual allegations as true for purposes of the motion but concluded that the waivers were enforceable and covered the rights Talisker sought to assert, including those under Rule 69B(d). The court found no unlawful irregularity in the sales and dismissed the complaint.On direct appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Utah affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The court held that Talisker’s broad and explicit waivers in the loan documents encompassed all rights and defenses related to the foreclosure sales, including the right to challenge the method of sale or seek equitable relief based on alleged unfairness or irregularities. The court concluded that, regardless of the alleged conduct, Talisker had contractually relinquished any basis for relief. View "TALISKER PARTNERSHIP v. MIDTOWN ACQUISITIONS" on Justia Law

A group of residents and business owners in Salt Lake City filed a lawsuit against the city, alleging that the city's failure to eliminate encampments of unsheltered people on public land interfered with their use and enjoyment of their properties. The residents claimed that the city, as a landowner, had a duty to maintain its properties free of nuisance. The city argued that the residents were attempting to use the court to force the city to exercise its enforcement powers in a specific way, and that under the public duty doctrine, the city had no duty to the residents regarding its failure to use those powers.The Third District Court in Salt Lake County dismissed the residents' complaint with prejudice, ruling that the public duty doctrine precluded their claims. The court found that the residents failed to allege that the city breached a duty owed specifically to them, rather than a duty owed to the public at large. The court concluded that the city owed no duty to the residents individually apart from its general duty to enforce laws and protect the public.The Utah Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's dismissal. The court held that the public duty doctrine, which protects government actors from civil liability for failing to perform duties owed to the public, precluded the residents' claims of public and private nuisance. The court found that no special relationship existed between the residents and the city that would exempt the residents' claims from the public duty doctrine's preclusion. The court emphasized that the public duty doctrine applies to omissions by government actors performing public duties and that the residents did not demonstrate any unique duty owed to them by the city. View "Barrani v. Salt Lake City" on Justia Law

Valderra Land Holdings, LLC owns real property encumbered by a performance trust deed held for the benefit of Jenco, LC and others. After Valderra defaulted on its obligations, Jenco sought judicial foreclosure. Valderra counterclaimed, asserting a right to cure its default and requested the court to determine the amount owed. The district court set the payoff amount and directed Jenco to instruct the trustee to reconvey the property upon Valderra’s tender of funds.Valderra tendered the payoff amount, but Jenco did not instruct the trustee to release the trust deed. Instead, Jenco appealed the judgment and moved for a stay of the obligation to reconvey the property under rule 62(b) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. The district court granted the stay over Valderra’s objection, which argued that the order was injunctive and should be governed by rule 62(c), not 62(b).The Supreme Court of Utah reviewed the case and agreed with Valderra that the district court erred in granting the stay under rule 62(b). The court held that rule 62(b) applies only to stays of orders or judgments to pay money, not injunctive orders, which are governed by rule 62(c). The court found that the order requiring Jenco to instruct the trustee to reconvey the property was injunctive in nature. Consequently, the district court should have considered the motion under rule 62(c), which requires the court to determine whether the conditions for the security of the rights of the adverse party are just.The Supreme Court of Utah reversed the district court’s decision to grant the stay under rule 62(b) and vacated the order rejecting Valderra’s rule 62(i) objection. The court also denied Valderra’s request for appellate attorney fees, as Valderra was not awarded fees in the lower court. View "Jenco v. Valderra Land Holdings" on Justia Law

New Star General Contractors, Inc. (New Star) filed a lawsuit to enforce its construction lien on twelve condo units in a large development in Grand County after the developer, Sage Creek at Moab, LLC (Sage Creek), failed to pay for New Star’s construction work. The units’ owners, Dumar, LLC, and Duane Shaw (collectively, Dumar), challenged the lien on multiple grounds. The district court ruled in favor of New Star, allowing it to enforce its lien. Dumar appealed the decision.The Seventh District Court, Grand County, initially heard the case and ruled that New Star could enforce its lien. The court found that New Star’s preliminary notices were sufficient and that the lien was valid despite New Star’s failure to allocate expenses between the units and the common areas. The court also concluded that Dumar was responsible for the full amount of the lien, which included the costs of constructing Building C and its common areas. Dumar’s excessive lien claim was dismissed, and the court awarded attorney fees to New Star.The Supreme Court of the State of Utah reviewed the case. The court held that New Star’s second preliminary notices, which were specific to Building C, substantially complied with the Construction Lien Statute despite not listing the correct parcel numbers. The court declined to analyze the first preliminary notices. The court also held that New Star’s failure to allocate expenses between the units and the common areas did not invalidate the lien. However, the court found that the district court erred in calculating the amount owed under the lien by treating Dumar as owning all the common areas of Building C, rather than only its ownership share in the development. The court remanded the case for the district court to determine the correct amount Dumar owes based on its ownership share.Additionally, the Supreme Court vacated the district court’s order dismissing Dumar’s excessive lien claim and the attorney fee award for New Star. The court directed the district court to reconsider both issues on remand. View "New Star General Contractors, Inc. v. Dumar" on Justia Law