Salt Lake City Corp. v. Evans Development Group, LLC
369 P.3d 1262
Utah2016Background
- Salt Lake City sought land for a $50M Westside Railroad Realignment Project and needed a Rocky Mountain Power (RMP) parcel that RMP would not sell.
- City and PacifiCorp/RMP entered a Property Exchange Agreement: RMP would transfer its parcel to City if City immediately provided an equally suitable substitute site.
- City initiated condemnation of Evans Development Group’s 2.67‑acre parcel to use as the substitute parcel for RMP, then planned to transfer title to RMP.
- Evans moved for summary judgment arguing the condemnation lacked statutory authority because the City condemned solely to exchange the land to a third party.
- District court ruled for the City, finding the ultimate public uses (rail realignment and power substation) satisfied the public‑use requirement; Evans appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a municipality may condemn private property solely to exchange it to a third party for use by that third party | Evans: Statute requires the condemnor itself to be the entity in charge of the public use; condemning solely to give land to RMP is unauthorized | City: Exchange effectuates authorized public uses (rail and electric) and is allowed to acquire property by exchange to accomplish public projects | Court: Statute requires the condemnor to be the party in charge of the public use; condemning solely to transfer title to a third party (RMP) is not authorized in this manner — reversal |
| Whether the question of whether construction was commenced in a reasonable time required decision | Evans: City’s scheme would deprive condemnee of statutory remedy if construction not commenced; timely commencement is central | City: Not reached at district level (City proceeded on substantive public‑use ground) | Court: Did not reach the reasonable‑time issue because condemnation itself violated statute |
Key Cases Cited
- Utah County v. Ivie, 137 P.3d 797 (Utah 2006) (permitting contracting between governmental entities when each acts within its own powers)
- Utah Dep’t of Transp. v. Carlson, 332 P.3d 900 (Utah 2014) (enumerated public‑use list in eminent domain statute is nonexclusive but informs analysis)
- Marion Energy, Inc. v. KFJ Ranch P’ship, 267 P.3d 863 (Utah 2011) (standard of review for statutory interpretation)
- Giusti v. Sterling Wentworth Corp., 201 P.3d 966 (Utah 2009) (standard of review on summary judgment)