Brian High Development, LC v. Brian Head Town
348 P.3d 1209
Utah Ct. App.2015Background
- Brian High Development, LC (BHD) sued the Town of Brian Head; the trial court granted summary judgment for the Town and BHD appealed.
- BHD’s predecessor-in-title, Greyhound Financial Corporation, sued the Town in 1989; that action was dismissed by summary judgment in 1994 addressing (and rejecting) inverse condemnation claims.
- BHD asserted three claims in the current suit: inverse condemnation, an equal-protection (class-of-one) claim, and breach of contract based on an alleged oral agreement between the Town and a contractor who repaired water/sewer lines on lots BHD sold.
- The Town moved for summary judgment; the trial court concluded BHD’s inverse condemnation claim was barred by claim preclusion, BHD failed to plead a prima facie class-of-one equal protection claim, and undisputed facts plus inadequate controversion defeated BHD’s contract claim.
- BHD relied on an affidavit from its principal asserting conversations showing an oral agreement between the Town and the contractor; the trial court found the affidavit conclusory and treated the Town’s facts as admitted under Utah R. Civ. P. 7(c)(3)(A).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether inverse condemnation claim is barred by res judicata (claim preclusion) | Greyhound did not plead inverse condemnation in 1989 and the 1994 order did not decide that claim, so BHD’s claim is not precluded | Greyhound raised inverse condemnation in the 1989 suit; the 1994 judgment rejected those claims; Greyhound is BHD’s privy, so claim preclusion applies | Affirmed: claim preclusion bars BHD’s inverse condemnation claim |
| Whether BHD adequately pled a class-of-one equal protection claim | Town treated BHD differently than similarly situated lot owners; this supports an equal-protection violation | BHD’s pleading lacked any allegation of irrational motive or illegitimate animus required for a class-of-one claim | Affirmed: pleadings did not state a prima facie class-of-one equal protection claim |
| Whether genuine dispute of material fact existed on breach-of-contract claim | Smith affidavit shows Town and contractor had an oral or implied contract; this creates factual dispute precluding summary judgment | Undisputed facts (deemed admitted) show BHD contacted contractor and Town only directed hookup; Smith’s affidavit is conclusory and insufficient to create a material factual dispute | Affirmed: summary judgment on contract claim proper; affidavit conclusory and contradicted by admitted facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Orvis v. Johnson, 177 P.3d 600 (Utah 2008) (standard of review for summary judgment and viewing facts for nonmoving party)
- Gardner v. Board of County Comm'rs of Wasatch County, 178 P.3d 893 (Utah 2008) (inverse condemnation under Utah Constitution and remedies)
- Mack v. Department of Commerce, Div. of Sec., 221 P.3d 194 (Utah 2009) (three-part test for claim preclusion)
- Patterson v. American Fork City, 67 P.3d 466 (Utah 2003) (requirements for class-of-one equal protection claim)
- Midland Funding LLC v. Sotolongo, 325 P.3d 871 (Utah Ct. App. 2014) (a single sworn statement can create a fact issue to defeat summary judgment)
- Heideman v. Washington City, 155 P.3d 900 (Utah Ct. App. 2007) (formation of express or implied-in-fact contracts)
- PGM, Inc. v. Westchester Inv. Partners, Ltd., 995 P.2d 1252 (Utah Ct. App. 2000) (res judicata is a question of law reviewed for correctness)