Rocky Mountain Power Inc. v. Randy E. Marriott, Edge Holdings LLC
437 P.3d 653
Utah Ct. App.2018Background
- Rocky Mountain Power condemned easements across ~453 acres owned by Randy Marriott to build a transmission line; Rocky Mountain occupied the easements and began construction before a jury valuation for just compensation.
- Marriott held small mining permits and had applied to DOGM for a large permit to mine 145 acres in two phases; he sought just-compensation damages that included lost value from diminished ability to mine due to the new line.
- Preexisting encumbrances (a federal irrigation canal and existing utility easements owned by Rocky Mountain and Questar) limited Marriott’s unilateral ability to relocate facilities needed for expanded mining.
- Rocky Mountain amended its complaint to include a “Canal Provision” allowing Rocky Mountain either to relocate its line or to pay future compensation for deposits if the federal government approved canal relocation; Marriott moved for partial summary judgment to strike that provision.
- Rocky Mountain filed motions in limine to exclude evidence of damages premised on (1) relocation of the Utility Lines and (2) mining in areas not covered by the pending DOGM permit; the district court granted those exclusionary motions before expert discovery concluded and struck the Canal Provision via Marriott’s summary-judgment motion.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed striking the Canal Provision but reversed the evidentiary exclusions and remanded for further proceedings, holding the exclusions were premature because Marriott had not yet had a fair opportunity to develop expert proof of legal feasibility.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Marriott) | Defendant's Argument (Rocky Mountain) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of damages premised on relocating Utility Lines | Evidence of lost mining value should be admitted because relocation was reasonably probable and Marriott should be allowed expert proof | Relocation was speculative: Marriott had no unilateral right and never even requested relocation, so such damages are too speculative to admit | Reversed exclusion; court erred to decide before expert discovery — Marriott must be allowed to present expert evidence on whether relocation was reasonably probable |
| Admissibility of damages for mining outside the pending DOGM permit | Evidence should be admitted because approval of additional permits could be reasonably probable and merits expert proof | Approval of unfiled or unapproved permit areas is speculative and not legally feasible now | Reversed exclusion; premature to rule before expert discovery — Marriott may present expert proof on probability of obtaining additional permitting |
| Timing of district court’s rulings (motions in limine before discovery) | Early exclusion denied fair opportunity to develop essential expert evidence on legal feasibility | Early resolution appropriate to narrow issues and avoid irrelevant discovery | Held for Marriott: deciding legal-feasibility exclusions before fact/expert discovery was an abuse of discretion given need for expert testimony to prove highest-and-best use |
| Validity of Canal Provision (amendment requiring potential future payment/relocation) | Canal Provision impermissibly defers part of compensation beyond final judgment/payment timeframe | Provision protects Rocky Mountain by giving option to relocate or pay later if canal relocation occurs | Affirmed for Marriott: Canal Provision conflicts with Utah condemnation law and floating/indefinite future payments are impermissible; provision properly struck by summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Hildale v. Cooke, 28 P.3d 697 (Utah 2001) (sets three-part highest-and-best-use test and explains that legal feasibility requires reasonable probability of removing legal barriers)
- State ex rel. Road Comm’n v. Jacobs, 397 P.2d 463 (Utah 1964) (courts may exclude totally speculative projected uses; probability of removing legal barriers must appreciably affect market value)
- Jacobson v. Memmott, 354 P.2d 569 (Utah 1960) (rejects floating easements and requires definite designation so damages can be ascertained)
- Utah Dep’t of Transp. v. Admiral Beverage Corp., 275 P.3d 208 (Utah 2011) (severance damages measured by comparing market value before and after taking)
- Cornish Town v. Koller, 817 P.2d 305 (Utah 1991) (in-place mineral potential, though uncertain, can have market value and be admissible)
- Williams v. Hyrum Gibbons & Sons Co., 602 P.2d 684 (Utah 1979) (legislature may delegate condemnation authority to public utilities)
- Utah Dep’t of Transp. v. Jones, 694 P.2d 1031 (Utah 1984) (testimony on highest-and-best use must come from qualified experts)