422 P.3d 803
Utah2018Background
- In 2008 South Salt Lake conditionally approved vacating portions of Truman and Burton Avenues if a dealership purchased adjacent parcels; the condition was never satisfied and streets remained public.
- In 2014 a successor dealership filed petitions to vacate smaller portions it already owned; after notice and hearings the council approved the 2014 petition and voted 5–2 to vacate portions of the streets.
- Potter and other residents sued under Utah Code § 10‑9a‑801, arguing (1) the 2014 petition failed to name all owners "adjacent to the public street" as required by § 10‑9a‑609.5(1)(a)(i) and (2) council hearing notice was inadequate because the city attorney reframed the issue during the meeting.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the city, holding the petition properly listed owners abutting only the portions vacated and that the attorney’s remarks did not render notice defective.
- On direct appeal the Utah Supreme Court affirmed: it construed "adjacent to the public street" to mean adjacent to the portion being vacated, found no prejudice from any alleged petition defect, and held the hearing notice was sufficient because the matters considered were reasonably related to the noticed petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petition must name owners adjacent to entire named street or only the portion being vacated | Potter: statute requires naming owners of land "adjacent to the public street" (meaning entire street or at least to next cross street) | City: requirement refers to owners adjacent to the portion of the street sought to be vacated | Held: "public street" in context means the portion being vacated; petition complied because dealership owned adjoining parcels |
| Whether petitioner’s alleged failure to name distant owners is reversible per se | Potter: defect warrants reversal even without demonstrated effect | City: plaintiff must show prejudice from procedural noncompliance | Held: Prejudice required; Springville standard revised—plaintiff must show a reasonable likelihood that the error changed the outcome; Potter conceded no such likelihood |
| Whether vacation challenge implicates eminent domain (no prejudice requirement) | Potter: street vacation is like eminent domain so no prejudice element should apply | City: street vacation is a land‑use action, not a taking, and statutory scheme preserves private easements; general judicial‑review prejudice rule applies | Held: Not an eminent‑domain challenge; traditional prejudice requirement applies |
| Whether notice was inadequate because city attorney reframed the hearing | Potter: attorney’s comments changed the subject from "whether" to "how," depriving public of meaningful notice | City: notice gave date/place/time and identified the petition; attorney remarks were reasonably related to the noticed subject | Held: Notice was sufficient; matters considered were reasonably related to the noticed petition and statutory notice requirements were met |
Key Cases Cited
- Springville Citizens for a Better Community v. City of Springville, 979 P.2d 332 (1999 UT 25) (established prejudice requirement for land‑use challenges; court revises formulation in this case)
- Suarez v. Grand County, 296 P.3d 688 (2012 UT 72) (notice is sufficient when items considered are reasonably related to the noticed subject)
- Bahr v. Imus, 250 P.3d 56 (2011 UT 19) (summary judgment de novo review of district court’s decision)