Harold Selman, Inc. v. Box Elder County
2011 UT 18
| Utah | 2011Background
- Selmans own property bisected by Box Elder and Cache Counties, with a trail across the property linking Mantua and Paradise.
- In 2007, both counties designated the trail as a county road and Box Elder began road construction on the trail, including removing a gate.
- Selmans sued Box Elder for statutory violations, NEPA, and easement issues and sought arbitration from the Ombudsman's Office, which accepted the matter.
- The district court stayed arbitration, bifurcated proceedings, and held the Ombudsman lacked authority to arbitrate ownership because ownership was disputed; the Utah Court of Appeals affirmed.
- The Utah Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine the scope of the Ombudsman Act and held the Act permits arbitration of ownership disputes that are threshold to takings/eminent domain, remanding to allow arbitration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ombudsman Act allows arbitration of ownership in takings disputes | Selmans: ownership is central to takings; Ombudsman has authority | Box Elder: ownership is a threshold issue not within Ombudsman scope | Yes; Ombudsman has authority to arbitrate ownership as threshold in takings/eminent domain disputes |
| Whether mere allegations of ownership invoke Ombudsman authority | Selmans: mere ownership allegations suffice to invoke arbitration | Box Elder: only undisputed ownership should invoke arbitration | Yes; mere allegation can invoke arbitration under the Act |
| Whether ownership must be resolved before arbitration or can be decided within arbitration | Selmans: ownership should be addressed by Ombudsman as part of takings claim | Box Elder: ownership should be judicially resolved first | Ownership threshold can be addressed in arbitration; not required to be judicially resolved beforehand |
Key Cases Cited
- Harold Selman, Inc. v. Box Elder Cnty., 208 P.3d 535 (Utah Court of Appeals, 2009) (addressed whether ownership falls within Ombudsman scope (cited by opinion))
- LPI Servs. v. McGee, 215 P.3d 135 (Utah Supreme Court, 2009) (statutory interpretation of Utah takings/ent. domain provisions)
- Martinez v. Media-Paymaster Plus/Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 164 P.3d 384 (Utah Supreme Court, 2007) (interpretation of takings-related provisions and statutory language)
- Strawberry Elec. Serv. Dist. v. Spanish Fork City, 918 P.2d 870 (Utah Supreme Court, 1996) (interpretation of statutory language in related context)
- First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles, 482 U.S. 304 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1987) (takings analysis and compensation duty where government action preliminarily affects property)