Gillmor v. Summit County
246 P.3d 102
Utah2010Background
- Gillmor owned extensive property in the Synderville Basin and filed 1998 development challenges against Summit County's 1997 Plan and 1998 Code.
- In 1998 Gillmor sued to void or challenge the Plan and Code, which was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice after a year.
- In 2004 Gillmor sought amendments to the 1998 Code via Amendment and Plat Applications, which the County denied under the Plan and Code.
- Gillmor petitioned for review under CLUDMA 801(2)(a) within 30 days of the final denial decisions; the petition also included as-applied and facial challenges to the ordinances.
- The district court granted summary judgment concluding the claims were time barred and that Gillmor could not challenge the ordinance provisions as facially invalid.
- The Utah Supreme Court held Gillmor timely under CLUDMA and that petitioners may raise facial challenges to the ordinance within the 801(2)(a) review framework, remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gillmor's petition for review was timely under CLUDMA 801(2)(a). | Gillmor’s claims were timely under 801(2)(a). | Gillmor’s claims were time barred as facial attacks on the ordinances. | Claims timely under 801(2)(a); reviewed on merits. |
| Whether Gillmor may raise facial challenges to the 1997 Plan and 1998 Code in a petition for review. | Gillmor may raise facial challenges after timely review. | Facial challenges must be raised within 30 days of enactment. | Yes; facial challenges may be raised once jurisdiction is satisfied. |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate on timeliness grounds. | Because timely, summary judgment on timeliness was improper. | The claims were time barred and should be dismissed. | Summary judgment reversed; timeliness reversed for further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tolman v. Logan City, 2007 UT App 260 (Utah App. 2007) (facial challenges ripe on enactment in limited takings context; not controlling here)
- Levald, Inc. v. City of Palm Desert, 998 F.2d 680 (9th Cir. 1993) (distinguishes accrual for facial challenges in takings context)
- Travis v. County of Santa Cruz, 94 P.3d 538 (Cal. 2004) (facial challenges to ordinances and enforcement relevance)
- Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (U.S. 2003) (time for challenging facial constitutionality after injury)
- Foutz v. City of S. Jordan, 2004 UT 75 (Utah 2004) (context of CLUDMA expediting development; statutory interpretation)