Swallow v. Jessop
296 P.3d 742
| Utah | 2013Background
- District court denied intervention motions in ongoing UEP Trust administration after secular reform in 2006.
- UEP Trust originally FLDS; reformed as a charitable trust under neutral principles of law with supervisory district-court oversight.
- Fiduciary sought sale of Berry Knoll Farm; FLDS members and bishops sought intervenor status under Rule 24(a).
- District court denied intervention but allowed input at a public hearing; sale of Berry Knoll was approved.
- Appellants challenged denial on Rule 24(a)(1) and 24(a)(2); this Court affirms, finding no unconditional right or sufficient interest.
- Trust provisions permit ecclesiastical input only as non-binding considerations within secular administration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §75-7-405(8) creates an unconditional right to intervene. | Appellants rely on special‑interest exception to intervene under 24(a)(1). | Statute does not expressly grant an unconditional right to intervene. | No unconditional right to intervene under 24(a)(1). |
| Whether appellants have a legally cognizable 'special interest' justifying intervention. | Appellants possess a sacred priesthood stewardship and ecclesiastical duties over Berry Knoll. | Class is indefinite and sale is ordinary trustee discretion; interests are not legally cognizable. | Special-interest exception not satisfied; interests insufficient for intervention. |
| Whether intervention is warranted under Rule 24(a)(2) given asserted interests relate to the subject matter. | Religious interests bear on Trust administration and should be protected. | Interests are abstract and not tied to a litigable claim or relief; insufficient pleadings. | Rule 24(a)(2) interests not satisfied; no adequate basis for intervention. |
Key Cases Cited
- Parduhn v. Bennett, 112 P.3d 495 (Utah 2005) (standards for intervention and what constitutes an adequate interest)
- Interstate Land Corp. v. Patterson, 797 P.2d 1101 (Utah Ct. App. 1990) (intervention requires a direct, not incidental, interest in the subject matter)
- United States v. Hooker Chems. & Plastics Corp., 749 F.2d 968 (2d Cir. 1984) (intervention standards require careful balancing of interests and efficiency)