Utah Department of Transportation v. FPA West Point, LLC, 304 P.3d 810

UDOT sought to condemn an access easement on FPA West Point property; Kmart claimed an interest in the same access.
FPA and Kmart both claimed interests in the condemned access and the district court ordered separate compensation determinations.
UDOT sought interlocutory appeal from the district court’s order granting separate valuations.
Assessment Statute 78B-6-511(1) requires valuing each separate interest and the property as a whole; the district court relied on Town of Perry v. Thomas and criticized Brown.
The court granted interlocutory review to resolve (i) whether interests must be valued separately, and (ii) whether such valuations may occur in separate or consolidated proceedings.
The Utah Supreme Court held: values of respective interests must be individually assessed using the aggregate-of-interests approach, and such assessments may be conducted in either separate or consolidated proceedings, with remand for the district court to decide the mode.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Must interests in a condemned parcel be valued separately?	FPA: values must be separately assessed.	UDOT: Brown supports valuing the property as a whole.	Yes; aggregate-of-interests required.
Can separation of proceedings be selected for valuation?	Proceedings should be separate to separately value FPA and Kmart.	Proceedings Statute gives discretion for separate or consolidated proceedings.	Yes; the district court may order separate or consolidated proceedings.

Town of Perry v. Thomas, 82 Utah 159, 22 P.2d 343 (1933) (Utah 1933) (supports separate valuation of each interest under predecessor statute)
State ex rel. Road Commission v. Brown, 531 P.2d 1294 (Utah 1975) (Utah 1975) (language later repudiated as inconsistent with statute in this case)
Admiral Beverage Corp. v. Utah Dept. of Transportation, 2011 UT 62, 275 P.3d 208 (Utah 2011) (Takings Clause protects each interest; aggregate-of-interests favored over apportionment)