Lexplug logoLexplug

Utah County v. Ivie

Utah Supreme Court
137 P.3d 797, 2006 UT 33, 552 Utah Adv. Rep. 71 (2006)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A governmental entity with the power of eminent domain may validly enter an agreement to condemn property for a public project where another governmental entity, which lacks the power to condemn that specific property, funds the acquisition, provided the condemning entity has a legitimate, independent public purpose for the taking and is not acting in bad faith.


Facts:

  • For many years, Utah County and Provo City planned to build a collector street to alleviate traffic congestion.
  • The proposed road would connect two Provo City streets but needed to cross an unincorporated island of land within Utah County.
  • This unincorporated land was owned by Spring Canyon Limited Partnership and other related parties (collectively 'Spring Canyon').
  • Provo City initially attempted to condemn Spring Canyon's property but was found by the Utah Supreme Court to lack the extraterritorial condemnation authority to do so.
  • While the initial case was pending, Provo City and Utah County entered into an agreement.
  • Under the agreement, Utah County would use its eminent domain authority to condemn the necessary property from Spring Canyon.
  • In exchange, Provo City agreed to pay all expenses associated with the condemnation, construction, and maintenance of the new road.

Procedural Posture:

  • In a prior case, Provo City sued Spring Canyon in district court to condemn the property and was granted an order of immediate occupancy.
  • On interlocutory appeal in that prior case, the Utah Supreme Court reversed, holding Provo City lacked the statutory power to condemn property outside its corporate limits.
  • Following that decision, Utah County filed a new complaint in district court to condemn the same Spring Canyon property.
  • Utah County also filed a motion for an order of immediate occupancy.
  • Spring Canyon filed a motion to dismiss the condemnation action, arguing the agreement between the County and City was an unlawful attempt to circumvent the prior ruling.
  • The district court denied Spring Canyon's motion to dismiss and granted Utah County's motion for an order of immediate occupancy.
  • The Utah Supreme Court granted Spring Canyon's request to file this interlocutory appeal.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does an agreement where a county condemns property for a road project, with all costs paid by a city that lacks the power to condemn that specific property, constitute an invalid exercise of eminent domain or demonstrate bad faith sufficient to dismiss the condemnation action?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice Durrant

No. The agreement between Utah County and Provo City is a valid exercise of their respective powers and does not demonstrate bad faith, so the condemnation action is not invalid. The agreement is permissible under the general contracting powers of local governments, as each entity is performing a function it is individually authorized to do: Utah County is authorized to condemn property for public roads, and Provo City is authorized to appropriate funds for projects that benefit its inhabitants. The Interlocal Cooperation Act (ICA) is intended to expand, not limit, the ability of governments to cooperate, and its specific requirements do not abrogate these general contracting powers. The court found no evidence of bad faith, reasoning that Utah County had a legitimate, independent interest in alleviating traffic congestion that benefits its own citizens. The fact that Provo City agreed to pay the costs was viewed as 'prudent fiscal management' rather than a collusive scheme to circumvent a prior court decision. Therefore, the county's determination that the taking was necessary is entitled to deference.



Analysis:

This decision clarifies the legal framework for intergovernmental cooperation on public works projects, particularly in the context of eminent domain. It establishes that governmental entities can combine their distinct powers and resources—such as one entity's condemnation authority and another's funding—to achieve a shared public purpose. The ruling sets a key precedent that such arrangements are not inherently invalid or in bad faith, so long as the condemning authority has an independent, legitimate public interest in the project. This provides a legal pathway for municipalities and counties to collaborate on regional infrastructure projects that cross jurisdictional boundaries, potentially streamlining development and resource allocation.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Utah County v. Ivie (2006)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"