Olsen v. Park City Municipal Corp.
2013 UT App 262
| Utah Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Landowners challenged Park City Ordinance 10-08, which combined three parcels into one lot and approved a subdivision they contended harmed their property interests.
- City Council passed the Ordinance on February 25, 2010; the Ordinance required signature, attestation, approval as to form, and stated it would “take effect upon publication.” It was published March 3, 2010.
- Landowners filed an original district-court complaint on March 31, 2010 but did not serve the City until December 8, 2010; that action was dismissed without prejudice for untimely service.
- Landowners filed a new complaint under the Savings Statute on October 13, 2011; the City moved to dismiss, arguing the original complaint was not timely under MLUDMA § 10-9a-801(5).
- The district court held the 30-day MLUDMA filing period ran from the City Council’s passage of the ordinance and dismissed; the Court of Appeals reversed, concluding “enactment” means completion of all steps making the ordinance effective (including publication).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When does the 30-day MLUDMA limitations period begin for challenging a land use ordinance? | Olsen et al.: It begins when the ordinance becomes final and effective per its terms (i.e., upon publication). | Park City: It begins on the date the council passed/adopted the ordinance. | Court: "Enactment" includes all steps that give the ordinance the validity of law; here it occurred on publication, so the original complaint was timely. |
Key Cases Cited
- Perez v. South Jordan City, 296 P.3d 715 (Utah 2013) (issuance/finality requires completion of statutory steps; provides template for fixed trigger date and public notice)
- Bissland v. Bankhead, 171 P.3d 430 (Utah 2007) (interpreting the term “passage” as the legislative vote event)
- Stampin’ Up, Inc. v. Labor Comm’n, 256 P.3d 250 (Utah Ct. App. 2011) (statutory interpretation begins with plain language)
- Amax Magnesium Corp. v. Utah State Tax Comm’n, 796 P.2d 1256 (Utah 1990) (words in a statute are presumed chosen carefully and should be given their plain meaning)