Olsen v. Eagle Mountain City
2011 UT 10
| Utah | 2011Background
- Olsen was elected Eagle Mountain City mayor in 2005 and later faced seven counts of misusing public funds stemming from his mayoral duties.
- Olsen was acquitted after a four-day trial on September 25, 2008, and he used private counsel for his defense.
- About four weeks after acquittal, on October 29, 2008, Olsen requested reimbursement of $119,834.90 in fees and costs from the City; the City did not respond.
- Olsen filed suit in February 2009 seeking reimbursement under Utah's reimbursement statute after the City failed to respond.
- The City moved to dismiss, arguing Olsen did not submit a timely request to defend him under Utah Code section 63G-7-902; the district court denied the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What is the proper 'manner' for reimbursement requests under §52-6-202? | Olsen argues only a written request suffices; timing under §63G-7-902 does not apply to criminal reimbursements. | Eagle Mountain contends the 'manner' includes the timing provisions of §902 to defend, so Olsen failed to timely request defense. | The 'manner' is limited to a written request; timing provisions do not apply to criminal reimbursement requests. |
| Does §63G-7-902 (and §903), incorporated by §52-6-202, extend to criminal reimbursements? | Incorporation provides a framework for reimbursement requests in criminal actions. | Incorporation includes defense timing and procedures applicable to civil actions; thus Olsen should have timely requested defense. | Incorporation does not extend to criminal reimbursements; timing and defense provisions do not control criminal reimbursement requests. |
| Should the statutory interpretation favor Olsen's or Eagle Mountain's construction of the reimbursement scheme? | Olsen's construction aligns with the text and structure of the statute. | City's construction preserves all provisions by incorporating §902/§903 broadly. | Court adopts Olsen's construction as most consistent with the language and statutory structure. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hulbert v. State, 607 P.2d 1217 (Utah 1980) (defined 'manner' as the mode or method of doing something in reimbursement context)
- Hall v. Utah State Dep't of Corr., 24 P.3d 958 (Utah 2001) (canon mentioning effect to be given to all words of a statute)
- Berrett v. Purser & Edwards, 876 P.2d 367 (Utah 1994) (statutory construction caution against adding terms not in text)