Lead Opinion
Introduction
¶ 1 This certified question emerges from a number of cases pending before several federal district courts concerning ownership of certain rights of way claimed by the State of Utah and several of its counties pursuant to Revised Statute 2477. The federal courts ask that we determine whether Utah Code section 78B-2-201(1) and its predecessor are statutes of limitations or statutes of repose. We hold that the plain language of both versions of the statute reveals them to be statutes of repose.
Background
¶ 2 This case concerns the interrelationship of four separate statutes: Revised Statute 2477, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the Quiet Title Act, and Utah Code section 78B-2-201(1). The first statute, R.S. 2477, was enacted in 1866 to facilitate access to mining deposits located under federal lands. The statute provides "[t]hat the right of way for the construction of highways over public lands, not reserved for public uses, is hereby granted."
¶ 3 Although R.S. 2477 granted title to rights of way by operation of law-no suit or other action was required to establish title-a claimant can only protect its title to the right of way by filing suit against the United States under the federal Quiet Title Act, 28 U.S.C. section 2409a (QTA).
¶ 4 To protect their alleged title to certain rights of way, Kane County, Garfield County, and the State of Utah (collectively, State or State Parties) filed separate lawsuits in 2011 against the United States. In the proceedings giving rise to the certified question, Kane County, Garfield County, and the State claim 1,510 rights of way. In addition to those proceedings, the State and various counties have initiated more than 20 separate cases to perfect title to several thousand more R.S. 2477 rights of way. There are accordingly now multiple cases pending before multiple judges of the Utah federal district court regarding at least 12,000 claimed R.S. 2477 rights of way, with each right of way claim involving unique facts.
¶ 5 On June 27, 2014, the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA), which acts as a limited permissive intervenor in the Kane County and Garfield County cases, filed a memorandum with the United States District Court in support of the United States' Motion for Partial Dismissal, arguing that Utah Code section 78B-2-201 and its predecessor are seven-year statutes of repose that began to run as to each individual right of way when the State first accepted the road pursuant to R.S. 2477. Because the State could not have obtained an R.S. 2477 right of way later than October 21, 1976-the date Congress enacted the FLPMA and repealed R.S. 2477-SUWA argued that the State was required to assert claims under the QTA no later than 1983, seven years after October 21, 1976. The federal district courts decided that section 201 and its predecessor could prove dispositive in the proceedings. Consequently, they certified to us the limited legal question of whether section 78B-2-201 and its predecessor are statutes of repose or statutes of limitations within this context.
Standard of Review
¶ 6 As noted, this case comes to us by certified question emerging from a number of proceedings before several judges of the United States District Court for the District of Utah. "A certified question from the federal district court does not present us with a decision to affirm or reverse a lower court's decision; as such, traditional standards of review do not apply."
Analysis
¶ 7 The certified question asks whether Utah Code section 78B-2-201(1) and its predecessor are statutes of limitations or statutes of repose. The predecessor to section 201(1), which was in effect from the time it was enacted in 1872 until 2008, provided as follows:
[1] The state will not sue any person for or in respect to any real property, or the issues or profits thereof, by reason of the right or title of the state to the same, unless:
[a] such right or title shall have accrued within seven years before any action or other proceeding for the same shall be commenced; or
[b] the state or those from whom it claims shall have received the rents and profits of such real property, or some part thereof, within seven years.11
The legislature amended the statute in 2008 to read:
[1] The state may not bring an action against any person for or with respect to any real property, its issues or profits, based upon the state's right or title to the real property, unless:
[a] the right or title to the property accrued within seven years before any action or other proceeding is commenced; or
[b] the state or those from whom it claims received all or a portion of the rents and profits from the real property within the immediately preceding seven years.12
The certified question asks us to interpret these two versions of the statute and determine whether they should be construed as statutes of repose or statutes of limitations.
¶ 8 Although not directly addressed in the certified question, two bills passed in 2015 bear on our decision. First, the legislature again amended section 201 to add a new subsection, though it left the remainder of the statute-including the portions relevant to our discussion today-unchanged. This new subsection states that "[t]he statute of limitations in this section runs from the date on which the state or those from whom it claims received actual notice of the facts giving rise to the action."
¶ 9 There are three main issues raised by the parties in response to the certified question: first, whether we should even address the certified question due to the possibility of issuing an advisory opinion; second, whether, using our normal tools of statutory interpretation, we should interpret section 78B-2-201 and its predecessor as statutes of limitations or statutes of repose; and third, if we interpret these statutes as statutes of repose, whether we should reform the statutes under our absurdity doctrine. We address each issue in turn and conclude that we should address the question on its merits, and that though the plain language of both iterations of the statute renders them statutes of repose, the result of applying such an interpretation to the State's R.S. 2477 rights of way works such an overwhelmingly absurd result that we construe the statutes as statutes of limitations as to such claims.
I. We Will Answer the Certified Question, Leaving Resolution of How and Whether Our Interpretation Applies to the Underlying Cases to the Federal Courts
¶ 10 Prior to interpreting section 78B-2-201 and its predecessor, we first address whether we should decline to answer the certified question. The State has advanced several reasons why our interpretation of these statutes does not apply to the underlying case: (1) the 2015 bills amending section 201 and adding section 78B-2-118 are retroactive and control the litigation;
¶ 11 "On certification, we answer the legal questions presented
without resolving the underlying dispute
."
¶ 12 With the exception of the question of whether the United States is a "person" for purposes of section 201 and its predecessor,
¶ 13 Our recognition that the federal courts retain the authority to decide "whether ... to apply our law," especially when it
intersects with federal law as it does here,
II. The Plain Language of Both Iterations of the Statute Unmistakably Renders Them Statutes of Repose
¶ 14 The federal district courts have asked us to decide whether Utah Code section 78B-2-201 and its predecessor are statutes of limitations or statutes of repose. Section 201, prior to its amendment in 2015,
[1] The state may not bring an action against any person for or with respect to any real property, its issues or profits, based upon the state's right or title to the real property, unless:
[a] the right or title to the property accrued within seven years before any action or other proceeding is commenced; or
[b] the state or those from whom it claims received all or a portion of the rents and profits from the real property within the immediately preceding seven years.34
The predecessor to section 201 read as follows:
[1] The state will not sue any person for or in respect to any real property, or the issues or profits thereof, by reason of the right or title of the state to the same, unless:
[a] such right or title shall have accrued within seven years before any action or other proceeding for the same shall be commenced; or
[b] the state or those from whom it claims shall have received the rents and profits of such real property, or some part thereof, within seven years.35
The language found in subsection (1)(a) of both versions of the statute-"right or title ... accrued within seven years before any action or other proceeding [is] commenced"-controls this issue. The question is whether this language means that the State cannot assert a cause of action related to real property except within the first seven years after the accrual of its right or title to the property-a statute of repose-or whether it means that the State cannot bring suit except within seven years after the accrual of a cause of action based on its right or title to the real property-a statute of limitations.
¶ 15 "When interpreting a statute, it is axiomatic that this court's primary goal 'is to give effect to the legislature's intent in light of the purpose that the statute was meant to achieve.' "
¶ 16 "Whether a statute that bars or terminates a claim for relief is a statute of limitations or a statute of repose depends on the nature of the statute and the manner in which it operates to cut off the legal right of a person to obtain a remedy for an injury."
[a] statute of limitations requires a lawsuit to be filed within a specified period of time after a legal right has been violated or the remedy for the wrong committed is deemed waived. A statute of repose bars all actions after a specified period of time has run from the occurrence of some event other than the occurrence of an injury that gives rise to a cause of action. ...
....
.... Therefore, a statute of repose may bar the filing of a lawsuit even though the cause of action did not even arise until after it was barred and even though the injured person was diligent in seeking a judicial remedy.42
Accordingly, we distinguish statutes of limitations and statutes of repose by looking to the event that triggers the start of the statutory timeframe: if the trigger is the accrual of a cause of action, it is a statute of limitation, but if it is some other event, it is a statute of repose.
¶ 17 Prior to 2008, the relevant language of section 201 stated that
The state will not sue any person for or in respect to any real property ... by reason of the right or title of the state to the same, unless ... such right or title shall have accrued within seven years before any action or other proceeding for the same shall be commenced ....44
The 2008 amendment made only small changes. It then read as it does now:
The state may not bring an action against any person for or with respect to any real property ... based upon the state's right or title to the real property, unless ... the right or title to the property accrued within seven years before any action or other proceeding is commenced ....45
Accordingly, the 2008 amendment made it clear that the "right or title" that must have "accrued within seven years before [the] action or other proceeding" was "right or title to the property " that was the basis for the state's claim.
¶ 18 It is clear from its language that the relevant portion of section 201-both pre- and post-2008 amendment-is a statute of repose.
¶ 19 The State argues that if we interpret these statutes as statutes of repose, however, it will work such absurd results when applied in the R.S. 2477 cases that we are required to apply our absurdity doctrine and reform the statutes. As we discuss below, we agree and accordingly construe section 201 and its predecessor as statutes of limitations within the context of the State's R.S. 2477 claims.
III. We Employ the Absurdity Doctrine and Construe Section 201 and Its Predecessor as Statutes of Limitations with Respect to the State's R.S. 2477 Rights of Way
¶ 20 Although section 201 and its predecessor are by their plain language statutes of repose, the State asks us to apply the absurdity doctrine to construe them as statutes of limitations. The State argues that applying these statutes as statutes of repose leads to the absurd result that it "automatically lost any interest it had in R.S. 2477 rights of way by [October 21,] 1983"-the last date it could have asserted a QTA claim-"even if it could not possibly have filed suit to protect those interests before that date." In response, the United States and SUWA contend that the statutes do not lead to absurd consequences when applied to the State's right of way claims because the State could have filed suit to protect its R.S. 2477 roads before 1983, and, even if the State could not have filed such a suit, there is nothing absurd about "leaving title claims unresolved when doing so will have little to no effect on the practical day-to-day use of the roads at issue."
¶ 21 We agree with the State. Applying section 201 and its predecessor as statutes of repose would effectively deprive the State of
its R.S. 2477 rights of way. As statutes of repose, the statutes would have been operating since 1872 to cut off the State's ability to protect rights of way that accrued since 1866-despite the fact that no mechanism to defend such property interests had been created judicially or legislatively until 1972. This is a result "so overwhelmingly absurd that no rational legislator could ever be deemed to have supported a literal application of [the statutes'] text."
¶ 22 As we concluded above, section 201 and its predecessor are by their plain language statutes of repose. Under the plain meaning rule, "where the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, our analysis [normally] ends."
¶ 23 "[A]s is common to all rules of statutory construction, the guiding star of the absurd[ity] doctrine is the intent of the pertinent legislative body, which limits the application of this canon of construction."
¶ 24 As noted above, section 201 prevents
[t]he state [from] bring[ing] an action against any person for or with respect to any real property ... based upon the state's right or title to the real property, unless ... the right or title to the property accrued within seven years before any action or other proceeding is commenced[.]58
Applied in this case, section 201 and its predecessor preclude any legal action with respect to the State's R.S. 2477 rights of way seven years after the State obtained right or title to those property interests. Because a property right that cannot be legally protected is only an ephemeral right at best,
¶ 25 The Mining Act, which permitted the State to obtain title to rights of way under R.S. 2477, was enacted in 1866. The predecessor to section 201 was enacted in 1872. Prior to the enactment of the QTA in 1972, the State had no legal mechanism to protect its vested rights of way. Because the earliest the State could have raised a QTA claim was 1972, section 201 and its predecessor ensured that the only R.S. 2477 roads the State could have protected against federal intrusion under the QTA were those obtained in and after 1965-seven years before Congress enacted the QTA. Taken together, these statutes created a regime where the right to protect title to R.S. 2477 rights of way obtained prior to 1965 automatically expired with respect to the federal government before any legal mechanism (the QTA) existed that would have permitted the State to protect its vested title.
¶ 26 Thus, if the State gained a right of way in 1964, the predecessor to section 201 would by 1971 have deprived the State of any cause of action to protect that property interest against federal usurpation, and this despite the fact that the only cause of action that could ever be asserted by the State to protect that property interest would not be statutorily created until passage of the QTA in 1972, one year later. And this pattern of accrual and automatic expiration has been ongoing since 1872. In short, this distinctive interplay between the predecessor to section 201 and R.S. 2477 prior to the passage of the QTA has rendered an unknown number of R.S. 2477 roads-gained over a 93 year period-ephemeral, leaving the State as owner in name only with no legal means to protect its property interests from the very governmental body that granted them.
¶ 27 Not only does the unique interplay between section 201 or its predecessor and R.S. 2477 during this period lead to an absurd result-the accrual of ephemeral property rights-the history of the legislation "confirm[s] that the absurd application was indeed unintended by the legislature."
¶ 28 The absurd result created by application of section 201 and its predecessor to roads before 1965 is not ameliorated by the passage of the QTA. Even though the enactment of the QTA in 1972 established a legal remedy that would permit the State to protect its property rights from federal intrusion, section 201 and its predecessor-when interpreted as statutes of repose-render that remedy largely illusory. Before the State can bring a QTA cause of action against the United States, it must show that the federal courts have jurisdiction over the suit, which requires the federal government to dispute the State's title to the property.
And even with passage of the QTA in 1972, the State's ability to secure its property interests is wholly contingent on the federal government's decision to dispute the State's title-a dispute that the United States may well elect to raise only after the seven-year period prescribed by section 201 and its predecessor. The State's inability to protect the property interests granted to it by the federal government has, in turn, rendered the State's R.S. 2477 rights of way inherently ephemeral with respect to the United States; for a property interest that gives its possessor no defensible rights against an adverse party is a property interest in name only.
¶ 29 The dissent, the United States, and SUWA resist this conclusion with several arguments. The dissent first argues that the absurd result identified by the majority-"that Utah would enjoy rights of way granted by the United States without a judicial remedy for quieting title to them against the United States"-"was the prevailing law nationwide for 106 years, from the passage of the Mining Act in 1866 until the passage of the Quiet Title Act in 1972."
¶ 30 This argument fails for two reasons. First, the dissent is mistaken to suggest that, because a law has been in effect for some time, it is immune from an absurdity analysis. We commonly apply the absurdity doctrine to statutes that have been on the books for decades.
¶ 31 Second, and more fundamentally, the dissent's argument fails to accurately describe the absurd result identified above. The result created by section 201 is not merely that there was no "judicial remedy for quieting title" to the State's R.S. 2477 roads. As the dissent correctly observes, even without section 201, the State could not have sued the federal government to defend such property interests until passage of the QTA in 1972. And if this were the result at issue, we would be inclined to agree with the dissent that it is not absurd.
¶ 32 The absurd result is instead that section 201 places a seven-year expiration date on the State's R.S. 2477 property, independent of whether the State could have sued the federal government. Applied according to its plain language, section 201 would reflect a legislative policy that the state can own such property only for seven years. This is an overwhelmingly absurd result. And it is one
that the legislature could not have intended because, as noted above, in 1872 when section 201 was first enacted, no cause of action existed against the federal government with respect to R.S. 2477 rights of way. Section 201, therefore, operates in concert with the Mining Act and the QTA to create a pattern of automatic expiration of title to a right of way seven years after its creation-a result the legislature could not have intended.
¶ 33 Next, the United States and SUWA contend that applying section 201 and its predecessor as statutes of repose is not absurd because "counties and the State have alternatives to title suits for solving [land management] problems, such as applying for rights-of-way under FLPMA Title V[,
¶ 34 This argument is unpersuasive. In
Marion Energy
, we decided that a Utah State agency, in coordination with a private corporation, could not condemn a right of way to certain oil and gas deposits under the relevant eminent domain statute, and concluded that because the corporation had "alternative avenues of access to its leased mineral rights," our interpretation of the eminent domain statute was not absurd.
¶ 35 Here, the State does not seek to obtain rights of way by a statute that is strictly construed against them-rights of way it could obtain elsewhere. Instead, it seeks to defend the rights it already possesses in certain R.S. 2477 roads. Title V of FLPMA simply does not grant the State any means of defending those rights. As noted by amicus Coalition to Protect America's National Parks, that statute "authorizes the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture to grant rights-of-way over federal lands for a wide variety of uses and purposes .... subject to various terms and conditions." We fail to see how a statute that allows a federal official to grant new rights of way provides a remedy to protect the disputed rights of way currently under State ownership. Section 201 and its predecessor work an absurd result when applied to the State's R.S. 2477 roads, and the United States' arguments to the contrary are unavailing.
¶ 36 Finally, the United States and SUWA argue that "there is nothing absurd about leaving title claims unresolved when doing so will have little to no effect on the practical day-to-day use of the roads at issue."
¶ 37 Because the absurd consequence at issue in this case was unintended by the legislature, we apply our absurdity doctrine. In order to avoid the absurd result created by the relationship between section 201, R.S. 2477, and the QTA, we construe section 201 and its predecessor as statutes of limitations with respect to the State's R.S. 2477 rights of way.
Conclusion
¶ 38 Despite the many claims raised by the State as to why our answer to the certified question could be advisory, we leave to the federal courts the resolution of the application of our interpretation of section 78B-2-201 and its predecessor to the underlying cases. Addressing the question on its merits, we conclude that section 201 and its predecessor are, by their plain language, statutes of repose. But applying these statutes as such to the State's R.S. 2477 claims leads to an overwhelmingly absurd result not intended by the legislature. Thus, we answer the certified question as follows: section 201 and its predecessor are statutes of limitations when applied to the State's R.S. 2477 rights of way.
Judge Voros filed a dissenting opinion, in which Judge Toomey joined.
Having recused themselves, Associate Chief Justice Lee and Justice Pearce did not participate herein. Court of Appeals Judges J. Frederic Voros and Kate A. Toomey sat.
There are three potentially relevant versions of the statute: the 2015 version, the 2008 version, and the pre-2008 version. As we discuss below, the two versions we are called to interpret today are the 2008 and pre-2008 versions-the two versions that existed prior to the legislature's most recent amendments.
Act of July 26, 1866, ch. 262, § 8,
San Juan Cty. v. United States
,
S. Utah Wilderness All. v. Bureau of Land Mgmt.
,
See
Block v. N.D. ex rel. Bd. of Univ. & Sch. Lands
,
28 U.S.C. § 2409a(g), (i).
As the State notes, "[t]he roads ... vary widely in character, ranging from two-lane, fully surfaced arterial connectors to two-track access routes." The State claims that these rights of way "remain in use for many purposes, including ranching, mineral development, fishing, hunting, sightseeing, recreation, and exploring."
U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. U.S. Sports Specialty Ass'n
,
Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Horne
,
Utah Code § 78-12-2 (2007) (alterations to numbering to reflect current numbering).
The Order of Certification, though issued after the legislature amended section 201 in 2015, makes clear that the federal district courts are not asking us to interpret the 2015 version of the statute, but rather the two prior iterations of the statute: the pre-2015, post-2008 version of the statute and the pre-2008 version of the statute, which was substantively unaltered from the version originally enacted in 1872. Thus, unless otherwise indicated, when we refer to section 78B-2-201, we are referring to the pre-2015, post-2008 version of the statute. And when we refer to the predecessor to section 201, we are referring to the pre-2008 version.
Utah Code § 78B-2-201(2) (2015).
See
Utah Code § 78B-2-118.
See
The amendment to section 201 indicates a legislative intent to clarify that the section is and was a statute of limitations.
See
Utah Code § 78B-2-201(2) (2015). Section 118 states that "[a]ctions against the federal government regarding real property and that are subject to the [QTA] do not expire under this chapter."
Section 102 states that the limitation periods found in chapter 2 of title 78B apply "except in specific cases where a different limitation is prescribed by statute." Thus, the State argues that the QTA's statute of limitations trumps the Utah statute. The United States and SUWA point out that the applicability of the QTA statute of limitations does not necessarily preclude the applicability of a Utah statute of repose because it is possible to have both a federal statute of limitations and a state statute of repose apply to a particular claim.
See
CTS Corp. v. Waldburger
,
The State argues that "state" is defined in such a way that it does not include counties. See Utah Code § 68-3-12.5(28). We have never interpreted this section, and we conclude that we need not do so here because it is unnecessary to our resolution of the question certified to us.
The State points to previous cases that held that this portion of the Utah Constitution prohibited the application of section 201 or its predecessor to certain claims involving lands granted to the State in trust by the Enabling Act.
See
Van Wagoner v. Whitmore
,
U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. U.S. Sports Specialty Ass'n
,
See
The State did not object to or otherwise attempt to modify the certification order.
This question, unlike the other arguments raised by the State, can be fairly said to be included within the scope of the certified question, so we asked the parties to provide supplemental briefing on the question of whether the United States is a "person" for purposes of section 201 and its predecessor. We appreciate the parties' thorough briefing on this important question. That briefing demonstrates that there are persuasive arguments both for and against reading the word "person" to include the United States.
All versions of the statute provide that the State will not sue "any person" under certain circumstances. The State argues that there is a "longstanding interpretive presumption that 'person' does not include the sovereign."
Vt. Agency of Nat. Res. v. U.S. ex rel. Stevens
,
A rich body of law has grown up around how to construe the word "person" when it is employed in statute. On one hand, the United States Supreme Court has long recognized an "often-expressed understanding that 'in common usage, the term "person" does not include the sovereign, [and] statutes employing the [word] are ordinarily construed to exclude it.' "
Will v. Mich. Dept. of State Police
,
This question is even more nuanced in Utah, given that the legislature has defined "person" in the general definitions statute. We agree with SUWA that, given that the events in this case took place before 2010, the relevant version of the definitions statute appears to be the pre-2010 versions, which define "person" to include "bodies politic."
See
Revised Statutes of Utah § 65-2-2498(5) (1898); Utah Code § 68-3-12(2)(o) (2004). But it is not clear whether the United States is a "body politic." Some courts have stated that a sovereign is a "body politic," but other courts have held that that term cannot be construed to encompass the sovereign.
Compare
Cotton v. United States
,
Even if we were to look to the 2010 amendments for the definition of "person," it is still not clear that that definition includes the United States. The 2010 amendments provide that "person" means, among other things, "a political subdivision; a government office, department, division, bureau, or other body of government; and any other organization or entity." Utah Code § 68-3-12.5(17)(i), (j), (k). Some of these terms, for example "other body of government" and "any other organization or entity," might appear broad enough to include the United States. But the canons of ejusdem generis and noscitur a sociis would suggest that these catch-alls cannot broaden the otherwise limited list, where each enumerated item is a government subdivision , and none is a sovereign.
Contrary to the dissent's assertion, it is not clear that the constitutional avoidance canon is sufficient to resolve this question. Cf. infra ¶79 n.90. While it is true that a state may not discriminate against the United States, it is not clear that providing a statute of repose or limitations defense to others, but not to the sovereign-who is protected from suit, in the ordinary course of events, by the doctrine of sovereign immunity-would constitute "discriminating" against the United States. For example, it could be said that it is solely by virtue of its own voluntary waiver, and not the state law, that the United States finds itself in a different position than other property owners.
Given the strength of these competing arguments, we find it sufficient to assume for purposes of this opinion that the word "person" in section 201 and its predecessor includes the United States.
See
Egbert v. Nissan N. Am., Inc.
,
Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Horne
,
Id. ¶¶ 8-9. Indeed, as we discuss below, we interpret section 201 and its predecessor as statutes of repose in the abstract using our usual plain language approach to statutory interpretation. Despite this conclusion, we apply another interpretive tool, the absurdity doctrine, and conclude that the statutes are absurd as applied to the State's R.S. 2477 claims. Thus, we answer the certified question-the proper interpretation of the statute-within the context of the underlying cases. But we do not need to reach beyond section 201-beyond the scope of the certified question-to make this analysis.
Id. ¶¶ 9-10.
Id. ¶ 10 (emphasis added).
To be sure, we may not answer a question of state law when there is a serious question as to the jurisdiction of the federal court over the underlying case or if the question asks us to opine on a purely hypothetical situation. In either circumstance, there is a high risk of issuing an unconstitutional advisory opinion.
See, e.g.
,
Utah Republican Party v. Cox
,
As noted above, the federal courts have not asked us to interpret the post-2015 amendment version of the statute.
Utah Code § 78B-2-201 (2009) (alteration to numbering to reflect current numbering).
Utah Code § 78-12-2 (2007) (alterations to numbering to reflect current numbering). The language of this iteration of section 201 remained substantively unaltered from its enactment in 1872 until the 2008 amendments.
Biddle v. Wash. Terrace City
,
State v. Miller
,
Torrie v. Weber Cty.
,
Stoker v. Workers' Comp. Fund of Utah
,
See
Sun Valley Water Beds of Utah, Inc. v. Herm Hughes & Son, Inc.
,
See
Sun Valley
,
Utah Code § 78-12-2 (2007).
The State claims that the 2015 amendment clarifies that the previous iterations of the statute all were intended to operate as statutes of limitations. The 2015 amendment to the statute does seem to indicate the legislative intent to transform section 201 in its entirety into a statute of limitation, and to do so retroactively. The parties have argued at some length about the retroactivity of this amendment. But given our conclusion that applying section 201 and its predecessor as statutes of repose is absurd, and that we accordingly construe the statutes as statutes of limitations with respect to the State's R.S. 2477 claims, we see no need to further inquire as to the applicability or impact of the 2015 amendment.
Utah Code § 78B-2-201(1) (2009).
Cf.
Cox v. Laycock
,
We note that the State urges this court to consider the effect of section 201 and its predecessor on all state real property, including non-R.S. 2477 property interests. The United States and SUWA oppose this approach, averring that we must instead limit our absurdity analysis solely to the factual and legal context of this case, lest we modify the statute on the basis of a case not before us. Though we do not rely on a consideration of non-R.S. 2477 property interests in this case to conclude that the statutes work absurd results when applied to the State's rights of way, we do note that we need not wholly disregard how a statute may operate in a hypothetical legal dispute. Considering how a statute would operate on different fact patterns in diverse legal contexts can sharpen the boundary between an absurd and non-absurd application of the statute. This, in turn, may enable a court to determine whether the statute as applied to the case before it leads to an overwhelmingly absurd result. Because an application of the plain language of section 201 and its predecessor clearly lead to an absurd result in this case, we need not consider the State's hypotheticals or the Appellees' responses to those hypotheticals. We do not, however, foreclose our ability to consider hypothetical applications of a statute in some future absurdity doctrine case.
State ex rel. Z.C.
,
Cox
,
FBI v. Abramson
,
State ex rel. Z.C.
,
State ex rel. Z.C.
,
We note that the scope of the absurdity doctrine-as we have applied it-is not limited to "scrivener's error[s]," i.e., statutes whose plain meaning would create an absurd result in all or nearly all of its applications.
Cf.
infra
¶47 (citation omitted). Under this doctrine as we have articulated it, the question is whether the statute creates "
an
absurd result," i.e., a result that is absurd in the particular circumstances.
See, e.g.
,
State ex rel. Z.C.
,
Utah Code § 78B-2-201 (2009). As discussed, the predecessor to section 201 has the same substantive effect.
State v. Morgan
,
State ex rel. Z.C.
,
See, e.g.,
Berry ex rel. Berry v. Beech Aircraft Corp.
,
See
Kane Cty. v. United States
,
Any right of way under R.S. 2477 had to be established by 1976, the year the statute was repealed. Thus, assuming that the State Parties perfected title to all of their rights of way immediately prior to the statute's repeal, under the United States' view of section 201 and its predecessor, the State Parties were permitted to bring suit to protect their interests for only the next seven years, until 1983. Thus, though Kane County's property right accrued at the latest by 1976, the United States argues it was prohibited from bringing suit after 1983-despite the fact that Kane County still had no effective legal mechanism it could use to protect that right even in 2014.
Jeffs v. Stubbs
,
Infra ¶ 39.
Infra ¶ 40.
See
Tschaggeny
,
See supra ¶28.
The dissent "cannot see how a non-absurd result mandated by federal law has become absurd when mandated by state law."
Infra
¶54. But this reasoning fails to appreciate "the pertinent legislative body" whose intent we must ascertain.
State ex rel. Z.C.
,
The dissent further argues that "[t]he absurdity doctrine does not authorize us to reject the clear meaning of an unambiguous statute merely because that statute prescribes a result that seems to disfavor the State." Infra ¶54. Quite right. We agree completely with that statement, but as we explain, section 201 and its predecessor do a great deal more than merely "disfavor the State." We agree with the dissent that "[a] result is not absurd merely because reasonable people viewing a statute with the benefit of hindsight would conclude that the Legislature acted improvidently." Infra ¶55 (citation omitted). But here, we conclude not that the legislature "acted improvidently" in passing section 201 and its predecessors, but instead conclude that no rational legislator could have intended these statutes to operate as statutes of repose under the circumstances of this case.
The dissent also raises this argument. See infra ¶¶57-64. And we find it unpersuasive for the same reasons we now articulate.
Quoting id. ¶30.
Id. ¶¶ 1, 30.
Id. ¶ 16.
The United States supports this argument by citing
Block v. North Dakota ex rel. Board of University and School Lands
, where the Supreme Court left North Dakota's title to certain real property "unresolved" under the QTA.
We note that our decision to construe these statutes as statutes of limitations accords with legal authorities interpreting similar statutes around the time the predecessor to section 201 was enacted. In People v. Arnold , the New York Court of Appeals interpreted New York's Nullum Tempus Act, under which
[t]he people of [New York] have agreed that they will not sue, or implead any person, for or in respect to any lands, by reason of any right or title of the people to the same, which shall not have accrued within the space of forty years before suit for the same be commenced, unless the people, or those under whom they claim, shall have received the rents and profits thereof within the said space of forty years.
Valley Colour, Inc. v. Beuchert Builders, Inc.
,
Dissenting Opinion
¶ 39 I respectfully dissent. The majority opinion employs the absurdity doctrine to override the plain meaning of section 201 on the ground that it would yield a result so overwhelmingly absurd that no rational legislator could have intended it. But the claimed absurd result-that Utah would enjoy rights of way granted by the United States without a judicial remedy for quieting title to them against the United States-was the prevailing law nationwide for 106 years, from the passage of the Mining Act in 1866 until the passage of the Quiet Title Act in 1972.
¶ 40 For this reason, I believe the majority opinion represents the most expansive application of the absurdity doctrine in American law. I am unaware of the absurdity doctrine ever being employed, in Utah or elsewhere, to reject as absurd not a proposed rule of law, but a long-existing rule of law-in this case, a rule of law governing all American states and territories for over a century. If that rule of law in fact mandated absurd results, surely in 106 years some court somewhere would have noticed. Yet no party cites, nor am I able to discover, any court questioning the rationality of the rule of law that we today declare absurd.
¶ 41 That said, I agree with much of the majority opinion. I agree with Part I insofar as it concludes that questions concerning the Quiet Title Act's twelve-year statute of limitations and the applicability of article XX of the Utah Constitution exceed the scope of the certified question. And I agree with the majority's conclusion in Part II that the plain language of section 201 and its predecessor unmistakably renders them statutes of repose.
¶ 42 The federal courts have requested that we determine whether Utah Code section 78B-2-201(1) and its predecessor are statutes of limitations or statutes of repose. I would answer categorically that they are statutes of repose.
I. The Result Mandated by Section 201 and its Predecessor Is Not Absurd or Even Uncommon
A. The Absurdity Doctrine Is "Strong Medicine."
¶ 43 The absurdity principle has two branches. "We apply the absurd consequences canon to resolve ambiguities in a statute. If statutory language lends itself to two alternative readings, we choose the reading that avoids absurd consequences."
Utley v. Mill Man Steel, Inc.
,
¶ 44 The absurdity doctrine serves as a crucial safety valve in our system of justice. Nevertheless, it "is a drastic step, one we have described as 'strong medicine, not to be administered lightly.' " Id. ¶ 48 (Durrant, C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (citation omitted). Because the text of an unambiguous statute "is almost always irrefutable evidence of the legislature's intent," we will override the plain language under the absurdity doctrine only where the result it mandates is "so overwhelmingly absurd that no rational legislator could have intended the statute to operate in such a manner." Id. (Durrant, C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
¶ 45 "In defining the parameters of what constitutes an absurd result," we have "note[d] the inherent tension in this canon of construction between refraining from blind obedience to the letter of the law that leads to patently absurd ends and avoiding an improper usurpation of legislative power through judicial second guessing of the wisdom of a legislative act."
State ex rel. Z.C.
,
¶ 46 However, the doctrine is virtually standardless. "Other than the directive that a result must be so absurd that the legislative body which authored the legislation could not have intended it, there is no precise legal standard to determine what legislatures would consider to be an absurd result."
¶ 47 A relatively non-controversial use of the absurdity doctrine is to correct obvious linguistic errors.
Take the scrivener's error. Sometimes a statute will misspell "third party" as "third partly." Or provide that the "winning party" rather than the "losing party" must pay the other side's reasonable attorney's fees. In cases like these, the error in the statute is so "unthinkable" that any reasonable reader would know immediately both (1) that it contains a "technical or ministerial" mistake, and (2) the correct meaning of the text.
Lexington Ins. Co. v. Precision Drilling Co.
,
¶ 48 But a more substantive use of the doctrine, though legitimate, nevertheless exists in tension with both the doctrine of separation of powers and the textualist approach to statutory interpretation.
See, e.g.
, Manning,
supra
¶46 at 2391 ("The Constitution's sharp separation of lawmaking from judging reflects a rule-of-law tradition that seeks to preclude legislatures from making ad hoc exceptions to generally worded laws. By asking judges to carve out statutory exceptions on the ground that the legislature would have done so, the absurdity doctrine calls on judges to approximate the very behavior that the norm of separation seeks to forbid.");
id.
at 2392 ("Thus, for those who accept ... the textualists' premises about the legislative process and the constitutional structure, a principled understanding of textualism would
necessarily entail abandoning the absurdity doctrine."). For example, one federal judge has argued that deploying the absurdity doctrine to overrule plain statutory text would "risk offending the separation of powers by purporting to endow a court with the power to disregard a possible statutory application not because of its linguistic implausibility but because of a judgment about the implausibility of its consequences as a matter of social policy."
Lexington Ins. Co.
,
¶ 49 The absurdity that the majority sees in section 201 is not of the non-controversial, linguistic sort. Section 201 is not "linguistically incoherent."
See
United States v. Head
,
B. Section 201 Mandates a Rule That Prevailed Throughout the United States For Over a Century.
¶ 50 Read as written, section 201 does not work an absurd result. The majority asserts that the claimed absurd result flows from the interplay of section 201 and two federal statutes:
Because the earliest the State could have raised a QTA claim was 1972, section 201 and its predecessor ensured that the only R.S. 2477 roads the State could have protected against federal intrusion under the QTA were those obtained in and after 1965-seven years before Congress enacted the QTA. Taken together, these statutes created a regime where the right to protect title to R.S. 2477 rights of way obtained prior to 1965 automatically expired with respect to the federal government before any legal mechanism (the QTA) existed that would have permitted the State to protect its vested title.
Supra ¶25. The interplay of these three statutes thus leaves the State holding rights of way that are "ephemeral" with respect to the federal government:
The State's inability to protect the property interests granted to it by the federal government has, in turn, rendered the State's R.S. 2477 rights of way inherently ephemeral with respect to the United States; for a property interest that gives its possessor no defensible rights against an adverse party is a property interest in name only.
Supra ¶28. I agree that this result flows from the interplay of the relevant state and federal statutes. But I do not agree that this result is absurd or even uncommon.
¶ 51 On the contrary, the result section 201 mandates is and always has been the status of the R.S. 2477 rights of way at issue here. "In 1866, Congress passed an open-ended grant of 'the right of way for the construction of highways over public lands, not reserved for public uses.' "
Southern Utah Wilderness All. v. Bureau of Land Mgmt.
,
¶ 52 This history makes clear that the rule of law the majority rejects as irrational and thus absurd is not novel or hypothetical. On the contrary, it has been tried and tested. Our nation lived under it for a century-long enough, I believe, for any irrationality in the rule to emerge.
¶ 53 But the majority opinion maintains that the absurd result sought to be avoided is not that the State lacks any judicial remedy for quieting title to the State's R.S. 2477 rights of way as against the federal government; on the contrary, the majority is inclined to agree that this result is not absurd. Supra ¶31. What is overwhelmingly absurd, the majority reasons, is the fact that the State "can own such property"-R.S. 2477 roads-"only for seven years." Supra ¶32. This result, the majority maintains, is "independent of whether the State could have sued the federal government." Supra ¶32. Again, I disagree.
¶ 54 First, as I read it, section 201 says nothing about what property the State can own; like all such statutes, it addresses only when the State can bring suit. Second, for a century federal law prohibited the State from suing the federal government to quiet title to R.S. 2477 rights of way; now section 201 does. I cannot see how a non-absurd result mandated by federal law has become absurd when mandated by state law. The absurdity doctrine does not authorize us to reject the clear meaning of an unambiguous statute merely because that statute prescribes a result that seems to disfavor the State.
¶ 55 What the majority has labeled an absurd result is nothing more than a missed opportunity. The drafters of section 201 and its remote predecessors might have chosen to draft those statutes as statutes of limitation rather than statutes of repose. Had they known then what we know now-that in 1972 Congress would pass the Quiet Title Act-they may well have done so. It would have been a prescient choice. But "[a] result is not absurd merely because reasonable people viewing a statute with the benefit of hindsight would conclude that the Legislature acted improvidently."
McGhee v. Helsel
,
¶ 56 Finally, no formulation of the absurd results doctrine of which I am aware, in Utah or elsewhere, would allow a court to reject a non-absurd result mandated by a statute on the ground that at some time in the past that statute would have mandated an absurd result. Consequently, whatever the State could or could not have done within any seven-year repose period no longer pertains; that period has expired, leaving the State without a judicial remedy to quiet title to any R.S. 2477 roads against the federal government-leaving the State, in other words, in the same predicament it and every other state and territory was in from 1866 to 1972. Or, more accurately, almost the same predicament, for the State has a remedy now that did not exist before 1972.
C. Section 201 and Its Predecessor Do Not Leave the State Without a Remedy.
¶ 57 The majority opinion reasons that adhering to the plain language of section 201 would be absurd in part because doing so would leave the State with "no legal means to protect its property interests from the very governmental body that granted them." Supra ¶26.
¶ 58 First, based on the analysis in the preceding section, I do not agree that section 201 and its predecessor need to provide an alternative remedy to avoid absurdity. Nevertheless, a party's alternative avenues to vindicate its rights or interests do weigh in the absurdity analysis. In
Marion Energy, Inc. v. KFJ Ranch Partnership
,
¶ 59 We held that the statutory phrase "mineral deposits" did not encompass oil and gas deposits. Id. ¶ 31. We reasoned that while a narrow interpretation of the statutory phrase would deprive the energy company of one means of accessing its leased oil and gas deposits-condemnation-the company had other available means of accessing and exploiting them. Id. ¶ 28. For example, we noted that the energy company "may have a statutory right to enter" portions of the private property so long as it complied with all statutory requirements. Id. ¶ 29. Other alternatives we noted were "securing the written consent or waiver" of the property owner and posting a bond. Id. (citation omitted). Of course, none of these alternatives was the equivalent of condemnation; none offered equivalent control and, perhaps more crucially, none guaranteed access-indeed, at least one of the alternatives we listed would have required the energy company to appeal to the absolute discretion of the landowner. We nevertheless concluded, "Because [the company] has alternative avenues of access to its leased mineral rights, we do not believe that it would be absurd to interpret ... the phrase 'mineral deposits' as not encompassing oil and gas." Id. ¶ 30.
¶ 60 Similarly here, reading section 201 and its predecessor according to their plain meaning may well leave the State with no
direct judicial
means to quiet title, but the State does have an alternative
administrative
means under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act to establish or renew its rights of way. Before the passage of FLPMA in 1976, "Congress had enacted a tangled array of laws granting rights-of-way across federal lands. In an effort to untangle these laws and establish a statutory scheme for the management of forest lands, Congress passed the Federal Land Policy and Management Act."
United States v. Jenks
,
¶ 61 Subchapter V of FLPMA authorizes the federal government to grant, issue, or renew rights of way over public lands for reservoirs, pipelines, roads, trails, highways, livestock driveways, and other systems or facilities that are in the public interest and that require rights of way over such lands.
¶ 62 And of course, if a claimant "disagrees with the agency's decision, it may appeal or seek judicial review."
United States v. Garfield County
,
¶ 63 This administrative approach is not so overwhelmingly absurd that no rational legislator could prefer it to litigating hundreds of historic R.S. 2477 claims that depend on
memories of events that occurred half a century or more earlier.
See, e.g.
,
San Juan County v. United States
, No. 2:04-CV-0552BSJ,
¶ 64 In sum, as in
Marion Energy
, the availability of an alternative avenue for the State to enjoy its claimed rights of way over federal land shows that applying section 201 and its predecessor according to their plain meaning does not work an absurd result here.
D. The 2015 Amendments Do Not Apply.
¶ 65 The State contends that two 2015 amendments to Title 78B "compel the conclusion that the statute is one of limitations, not repose."
¶ 66 House Bill 401 created a new section 78B-2-118. The new section addresses actions against only one party, the federal government. It provides that suits against the federal government under the Quiet Title Act never expire:
Actions against the federal government regarding real property and that are subject to the federal Quiet Title Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2409a, do not expire under this chapter.
UTAH CODE § 78B-2-118 (2015). The legislation specifies, "This bill has retrospective operation to October 25, 1972."
¶ 67 House Bill 1001 renumbered the existing section 201 as subsection 201(1) and added a new subsection (2). The new subsection (2) describes the new subsection (1) (the old section 201) as a "statute of limitations":
The statute of limitations in this section runs from the date on which the state or those from whom it claims received actual notice of the facts giving rise to the action.
UTAH CODE § 78B-2-201(2). The legislation specified, "This bill has retrospective operation to March 12, 1953." 2015 Utah Laws 1st Spec. Sess. 2806.
¶ 68 SUWA sees "three fatal flaws" in the State's argument based on the 2015 amendments. First, SUWA argues, application of these amendments would impair existing rights by reviving time-barred claims. Second, it argues, the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution prohibits state laws that discriminate against the United States. And third, SUWA argues, "the Utah Legislature is constitutionally prohibited from 'attempt[ing] to determine the outcome of a particular case by passage of a law intended to accomplish such a purpose.' " (Quoting
Foil v. Ballinger
,
¶ 69 The timing and text of the bills reveal that the amendments were aimed at pending R.S. 2477 litigation. This conclusion is reinforced by the floor debate on House Bill
1001.
¶ 70 These amendments do not alter my analysis of the character of section 201 and its predecessor, because applying the 2015 amendments to the present litigation would impair vested rights while impermissibly allowing the Legislature to determine the outcome of a particular case.
¶ 71 "A provision of the Utah Code is not retroactive, unless the provision is expressly declared to be retroactive." UTAH CODE § 68-3-3 (2010). Even then, other limits may apply. One such limit precludes retroactive amendments that would impair vested rights.
¶ 72 "We have often stated that retroactive application is permissible if the amended version of the statute '[does] not enlarge, eliminate, or destroy vested or contractual rights.' "
Harvey v. Cedar Hills City
,
¶ 73 Granting the 2015 amendments retroactive application in this context would also allow the Legislature to choose winners and losers in particular pending cases. Of course, the Legislature may by statutory amendment overrule our interpretation of statutes.
See
Foil
,
¶ 74 For these reasons, the 2015 amendments do not alter my conclusion that section 201 and its predecessor are statutes of repose.
II. The Federal Government Is a Person For Purposes of Section 201
¶ 75 The State argues that the federal government may not invoke section 201, because the federal government does not qualify as a "person" under that section. The majority concludes that this question can be fairly said to be included within the scope of the certified question.
Supra
¶12 n.25. "It has been the consistent practice of this court to decline to address issues that are not presented or fairly included in the question or questions that we have accepted for review."
Miller v. United States
,
¶ 76 It is not obvious to me that the question of whether section 201 is a statute of repose or a statute of limitations fairly includes the question of whether the federal government qualifies as a "person" for purposes of section 201. But assuming that the question of the personhood of the federal government is before us, it can in my judgment be readily resolved by reading the statutory text. "Courts are bound by the plain language of the statute."
Aris Vision Inst., Inc. v. Wasatch Prop. Mgmt., Inc.
,
¶ 77 The relevant statute here is Utah Code section 68-3-12.5. I agree with the majority that, given that the events in this case took place before 2010, the pre-2010 versions of the definitions statute appear to control, and that they all define "person" to include "bodies politic."
See
Revised Statutes of 1898 § 2498(5); UTAH CODE § 68-3-12(2)(o).
Supra
¶12 n.25.
¶ 78 Ample authority demonstrates that the federal government falls within the generally accepted definition of
body politic
at all relevant times.
See, e.g.
,
Monell v. Dep't of Social Servs.
,
¶ 79 Because the federal government is a body politic, it falls comfortably within the statute's definition of
person
.
* * *
¶ 80 We have been asked to read a statute. We should, in my judgment, stop "straining to avoid its natural meaning,"
see
Kungys v. United States
,
¶ 81 I thus respectfully dissent.
Like the majority opinion, unless otherwise indicated, I refer to the pre-2015, post-2008 version of the statute as section 201 and to the pre-2008 version of the statute as the predecessor to section 201. Supra ¶ 7 n.13. In addition, I refer to the 1872 version of the statute as the original predecessor to section 201.
Like the majority opinion, I "answer this question within the context of the particular circumstances in which the question arose-the State's claims to rights of way under R.S. 2477." See supra ¶13.
Because the majority opinion concludes that application of the statute according to its plain language would work an absurd result in the case before us, it has no need to consider hypothetical applications of the statute. See supra ¶21 n.50.
I likewise do not consider hypothetical applications of section 201, but for a different reason. I follow the approach this court took in
State ex rel. Z.C.
,
Not until 1972 would the Quiet Title Act waive immunity with respect to claims for rights of access and rights of way. 28 U.S.C. § 2409a (2011). The Quiet Title Act permits the United States to be named as a party defendant in a civil action under the Act "to adjudicate a disputed title to real property in which the United States claims an interest, other than a security interest or water rights."
Id.
§ 2409a(a). And in 1976 "Congress abandoned its prior approach to public lands and instituted a preference for retention of the lands in federal ownership, with an increased emphasis on conservation and preservation."
Southern Utah Wilderness All.
,
Like the fact that federal sovereign immunity barred Utah's title claims against the United States from the Mexican Cession until the passage of the Quiet Title Act, the availability of a federal administrative remedy distinguishes these claims against the federal government from all other claims to which section 201 might hypothetically apply.
Because the majority opinion reforms section 201 as a statute of limitations, it does not need to consider the State's alternative argument for reading that section as a statute of limitations. But because I read section 201 as a statute of repose, I must explain why the State's alternative argument fails.
In contrast to House Bill 1001, House Bill 401 passed both houses of the Legislature without floor debate. See Utah House Floor Debates, H.B. 401, 61st Leg., 2015 Gen. Sess. (Mar. 5, 2015), http://utahlegislature.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?clip_id=18757&meta_id=548111 [https://perma.cc/5K7E-VX4H]; Utah Senate Floor Debates, H.B. 401, 61st Leg., 2015 Gen. Sess. (Mar. 12, 2015), http://utahlegislature.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?clip_id=18898&meta_id=552758 [https://perma.cc/H6Z2-98F5].
Utah House Floor Debates, H.B. 1001, 61st Leg., 2015 1st Spec. Sess. (Aug. 19, 2015) (statements of Rep. Michael E. Noel), http://utahlegislature.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?clip_id=19095&meta_id=560947 [https://perma.cc/SFY8-M6GR].
Utah Senate Floor Debates, H.B. 1001, 61st Leg., 2015 1st Spec. Sess. (Aug. 19, 2015) (statements of Sen. Jim Dabakis), http://utahlegislature.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?clip_id=19094&meta_id=560932 [https://perma.cc/P6WC-HPTP]
Any claim that the amendments merely clarified the intent of the Territorial Legislature of 1872 lacks support in both fact and law.
See, e.g.
,
State v. Perez
,
Indeed, if the State's argument prevailed, the Legislature could control every stage of the pending litigation against the federal government by periodically amending any relevant state statute or rule and declaring the amendment to have retroactive effect.
Though probably inapplicable here, the 2010 version of the statute defines
person
to include both a "body of government" and "any other organization or entity." Utah Code § 68-3-12.5(14). The federal government is unquestionably a "body of government."
See, e.g.
,
Cogger v. County of Becker
,
In my judgment, the term
body politic
unambiguously encompasses the federal government. But even if the definitional section could plausibly be read-as the State urges-to grant the State greater rights under section 201 against the federal government than against other defendants, such a reading would risk running afoul of the Supremacy Clause. The Supremacy Clause forbids states to discriminate against the United States.
See
Phillips Chem. Co. v. Dumas Indep. Sch. Dist.,