381 P.3d 1142
Utah Ct. App.2016Background
- Chris and Sandra Checketts operated a countertop-cutting business offsite in a storage building on their residential property in Providence City and built a commercial addition in 2006.
- In March 2014 Providence City issued a Notice of Violation asserting the business was an unlawful land use and informed the Checkettses of a 15-day right to appeal to the Providence Appeal Authority.
- On March 17, 2014 the Checkettses filed suit in district court asserting zoning estoppel, but did not first exhaust administrative remedies. Four days later they filed three administrative appeals (one raising equitable estoppel).
- The Appeal Authority denied all of their claims on the merits in August 2014; the Checkettses then sought district court review (the Second Appeal), where the court upheld the Appeal Authority.
- The prior district-court dismissal (for failure to exhaust) gave rise to this First Appeal; the Court of Appeals held the First Appeal moot and barred by res judicata, and awarded the City appellate attorney fees under Utah R. App. P. 33.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Checkettses were required to exhaust administrative remedies before suing | The City had no administrative procedure to grant equitable estoppel relief, so exhaustion would be futile | City: Providence Code requires administrative appeal as a condition precedent to judicial review | Moot: Checkettses did exhaust (filed appeals) and received adverse rulings; issue cannot affect rights |
| Whether the First Appeal is moot | Checkettses: reversal would vindicate their right to district-court review of estoppel claim | City: Appeal is redundant because administrative and district-court review already occurred | Moot: later administrative/ district-court rulings rendered this appeal incapable of affecting rights |
| Whether res judicata bars the First Appeal | Checkettses: (implicitly) merits review in district court was required rather than administrative process | City: Same parties and claims were litigated; issue could/should have been raised in the Second Appeal | Barred: claim preclusion applies—same parties, same cause/issues, final judgment on the merits in Second Appeal |
| Whether appellate fees/sanctions are appropriate | Checkettses: pursued appeal to challenge jurisdictional dismissal | City: Appeal frivolous and for delay | Fees awarded: appeal frivolous and for delay; remanded to district court to determine reasonable attorney fees |
Key Cases Cited
- Fox v. Park City, 200 P.3d 182 (Utah 2008) (defines zoning estoppel elements)
- Burkett v. Schwendiman, 773 P.2d 42 (Utah 1989) (mootness: relief cannot affect parties' rights)
- Trustees of Eighth Dist. Elec. Pension Fund v. Westland Constr., 316 P.3d 992 (Utah Ct. App. 2013) (mootness when changed circumstances eliminate controversy)
- Macris & Assocs., Inc. v. Neways, Inc., 16 P.3d 1214 (Utah 2000) (elements and effect of claim preclusion)
- Redd v. Hill, 304 P.3d 861 (Utah 2013) (sanctions appropriate for meritless appeals resulting in delay)