Skypark Airport Ass'n v. Jensen
311 P.3d 575
Utah Ct. App.2013Background
- In 1979 the Developer recorded the Skypark Declaration (1979 Declaration) creating CCRs restricting commercial aviation uses and authorizing the Developer (and successors) and the Skypark Landowners Association to levy assessments and enforce the Declaration.
- Woods Cross purchased the Airport and most Skypark lots in 1981; in 1985 Woods Cross recorded the 1985 Declaration addressing airport assessments and stating it was intended to be “in lieu of” certain 1979 Declaration provisions.
- Skypark Airport, Inc. and later Skypark Airport Association, LLC (SAA) acquired the Airport; SAA sold fuel beginning in 1999 and levied assessments; defendants (owners in Skypark Hangars East) began selling fuel in 2002.
- SAA sued defendants to enforce fuel‑sale/use restrictions in the 1979, 1997, and 1999 Declarations and to record liens for unpaid assessments; the parties disputed enforceability, amendment, waiver, abandonment, and wrongful lien claims.
- The trial court (1) granted partial summary judgment that SAA is the Developer’s successor and may enforce the 1979 Declaration (subject to defenses), (2) later granted partial summary judgment that the 1985 Declaration validly amended the 1979 Declaration, (3) bifurcated trial issues so the court (not jury) would decide fees, assessment amounts, and wrongful lien, and (4) submitted waiver/abandonment defenses to the jury, which found SAA did not waive/abandon its rights.
- Defendants appealed; the Court of Appeals affirmed all rulings, declined to review the denial of defendants’ pretrial summary judgment (because it turned on disputed facts), upheld the 1985 amendment, and held the wrongful lien issue was for the court, not the jury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (SAA) | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SAA is successor to Developer and entitled to enforce 1979 Declaration | SAA is successor in interest and inherits Developer enforcement and assessment powers | Developer’s rights terminated (conversion of Class B to A, merger/unification when Woods Cross acquired most property, no vertical privity) | Affirmed: SAA is Developer’s successor; trial court correctly entered partial SJ on succession (other defenses reserved) |
| Whether trial court’s denial of Defendants’ partial SJ is reviewable | SJ denial was proper because factual disputes (waiver/abandonment/acquiescence) existed | Denial erroneous as matter of law | Not reviewable on appeal because denial rested on disputed material facts later resolved at trial |
| Whether 1985 Declaration validly amended 1979 Declaration | 1985 was a valid amendment; Woods Cross had voting power to effect amendment | 1985 invalid because signed only by Woods Cross and Mountain Fuel; “in lieu of” language means not an amendment | Affirmed: 1985 valid amendment—Woods Cross had controlling votes and “in lieu of” does not preclude amendment |
| Whether defendants were entitled to jury trial on wrongful lien claim | (implied) jury should decide whether lien was wrongful because assessment amounts were contested | Wrongful lien is legal/statutory question for the court; errors in assessment amount do not automatically make a lien wrongful | Affirmed: trial court did not err in reserving wrongful lien for the court; lien’s wrongful status depends on authority to record, not ultimate enforceability |
Key Cases Cited
- Bingham v. Roosevelt City Corp., 235 P.3d 730 (Utah 2010) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Swenson v. Erickson, 998 P.2d 807 (Utah 2000) (signatures may substitute for a formal vote in association actions)
- Hutter v. Dig‑It, Inc., 219 P.3d 918 (Utah 2009) (wrongful‑lien inquiry focuses on statutory authority to record lien)
- Zions First Nat’l Bank v. Rocky Mountain Irrigation, Inc., 795 P.2d 658 (Utah 1990) (existence of a debt may be legal or equitable issue)
- Durham v. Duchesne County, 893 P.2d 581 (Utah 1995) (legal questions of statutory interpretation are decided by the court)