Wash. Townhomes v. Wash.Co.
2016 UT 34
| Utah | 2016Background
- Plaintiffs (property owners) filed a putative class action challenging Washington County Water Conservancy District’s "water availability charge" impact fees as violating Utah’s Impact Fees Act and constituting a taking under state and federal constitutions.
- District defended fees as based on a DDW (Division of Drinking Water) "level of service" standard that it claimed was mandatory and thus reasonable or immune from heightened takings scrutiny.
- The district court granted the District’s motion for partial summary judgment limited to the legality/reasonableness of the DDW-based level-of-service standard and certified that order for immediate appeal under Utah R. Civ. P. 54(b).
- The plaintiffs timely appealed; the Utah Supreme Court considered whether it had jurisdiction to hear the certified appeal and whether to treat the filing as a petition for interlocutory review.
- The Supreme Court concluded the 54(b) certification was improper because the order did not constitute a final judgment disposing of a claim or party, and it declined to grant interlocutory review given the record and briefing deficiencies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court’s order qualified for Rule 54(b) certification | Order did not dispose of any claim or party, so certification improper | Certification was appropriate to allow immediate appellate resolution of a threshold legal issue | Court: 54(b) certification improper—no judgment disposing of a claim or party, so no jurisdiction under 54(b) |
| Whether the appeal could proceed as a petition for interlocutory review (App. R. 5) | Interlocutory review warranted to resolve threshold legal standards (Impact Fees Act, takings) | Opposed or argued issues suitable for district resolution first | Court: Treated briefing as petition but exercised discretion to DENY interlocutory review due to record/briefing deficiencies |
| Whether Dolan’s heightened takings standard applies (legislative vs adjudicative exactions) | District’s adoption is legislative or its fees are generally applicable; thus Dolan not applicable; only rational-basis review | If District was bound to DDW standard in planning, its fee measures are precise and would satisfy Dolan; alternatively District disavowed absolute immunity | Court: Declined to decide on merits—issue significant but not sufficiently presented on record/briefing |
| Whether the DDW standard was legally binding on the District (affecting appropriate review and proof) | Plaintiffs: DDW requirements not intended for impact-fee calculation; fees should be based on actual usage data | District: DDW standard was binding and prescriptive; fees reflect required infrastructure so lawful | Court: Record unclear on binding effect; court remanded for further factual development and district-court proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Mellor v. Wasatch Crest Mut. Ins., 282 P.3d 981 (Utah 2012) (general rule favoring appeals from final judgments; exceptions explained)
- Powell v. Cannon, 179 P.3d 799 (Utah 2008) (definition of a "judgment" for Rule 54(b) purposes)
- Houghton v. Dep’t of Health, 206 P.3d 287 (Utah 2008) (standards for interlocutory appellate intervention)
- Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (U.S. 1994) (heightened takings test for adjudicative exactions)
- Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist., 133 S. Ct. 2586 (U.S. 2013) (discussion of exactions and related takings precedents)
- Platt v. Town of Torrey, 949 P.2d 325 (Utah 1997) (deference and rational-basis review in rate-making/agency determinations)
- Parking Ass’n of Ga. v. City of Atlanta, 515 U.S. 1116 (U.S. 1995) (dissent noted on similarity of legislative and administrative takings)
- Ehrlich v. City of Culver City, 911 P.2d 429 (Cal. 1996) (distinguishing legislative vs adjudicative exactions)
- Dakota, Minn. & E. R.R. Corp. v. South Dakota, 236 F. Supp. 2d 989 (D.S.D. 2002) (application of Dolan to legislative exactions discussed)