Tooele County v. Erda Community Association, 521 P.3d 872

Background

In Dec. 2019 the Tooele County Planning Commission gave "conceptual approval" to a developer’s two land-use applications; ~125 Erda residents individually appealed to the County Council. The Erda Community Association did not file an administrative appeal, although some of its members were among the individual appellants.
The County Council (as the appeal authority) denied the residents’ appeals. The Association then sued in district court seeking LUDMA review and declaratory relief challenging the Council’s decision.
The County moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because the Association had not exhausted its own administrative remedies under LUDMA. The Association argued it could rely on associational standing (its members had appealed) and alternatively invoked judicial exceptions to exhaustion (outside-scope, futility, oppression/injustice).
The district court agreed the Association had not exhausted, but denied dismissal, concluding the alleged facts could support the "outside the scope" exception to exhaustion.
On interlocutory appeal the Court of Appeals reversed: the Association, as a person under LUDMA, was required to exhaust its own administrative remedies; none of the recognized exceptions applied; the district court lacked jurisdiction and must dismiss.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an association can satisfy LUDMA's exhaustion requirement by relying on members' individual appeals	Association: associational standing lets it "piggyback" on members' exhausted appeals	County: LUDMA requires each "person" (including associations) to exhaust its own remedies	Rejected — associational standing does not satisfy LUDMA's personal exhaustion requirement
Whether the "outside the scope of statutory authority" exception excuses exhaustion	Association: County violated statutes/ordinances (mandatory language, notice, pre-application, consent, spot zoning) so it acted outside its authority	County: review and disposition of land-use applications fall within county authority even if procedures or ordinances were misapplied	Rejected — county acted within its general delegated authority; procedural/interpretive errors do not place action outside authority
Whether futility of relief (because Council already denied similar appeals) excuses exhaustion	Association: prior Council denial of residents' appeals shows an Association appeal would be futile	County: administrative process was operative and could provide the relief sought; a denied appeal by others does not render a separate appeal futile	Rejected — futility is narrow (process inoperative/unavailable); here the appeal process was available
Whether requiring exhaustion would cause oppression or injustice excusing exhaustion	Association: denial would cause hardship to residents and degrade rural lifestyle	County: no showing that requiring the Association to file an appeal itself would be oppressive; the alleged injustice concerns the merits, not exhaustion	Rejected — must show exhaustion itself causes oppression/injustice; Association did not meet that burden

Key Cases Cited

Salt Lake City Mission v. Salt Lake City, 184 P.3d 599 (Utah 2008) (enumerated limited exceptions to exhaustion in land-use context)
Ramsay v. Kane County Human Res. Special Service Dist., 322 P.3d 1163 (Utah 2014) (statutory delegation makes exhaustion jurisdictional)
Patterson v. American Fork City, 67 P.3d 466 (Utah 2003) (failure to exhaust administrative remedies requires dismissal)
Walker Bank & Trust Co. v. Taylor, 390 P.2d 592 (Utah 1964) (narrow circumstance excusing exhaustion where agency has no statutory authority)
State v. Gardiner, 814 P.2d 568 (Utah 1991) (scope-of-authority test: actor doing what employed to do vs. personal frolic)
McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140 (U.S. 1992) (distinction between statutory and judicial exhaustion doctrines)
Nebeker v. Utah State Tax Comm’n, 34 P.3d 180 (Utah 2001) (reviewing dismissal for failure to exhaust)