Utah Supreme Court
2024 UT 39 (click for full text of opinion)
The Utah Supreme Court dismissed Summit County’s challenge to Hideout’s annexation of an area without petition under a provision in state law because the County lacked statutory standing and public interest standing did not apply.
For a brief period of 100 days during 2020, Utah law authorized a municipality to annex an outlying, unincorporated area without an annexation petition and without county consent. During this period, the Town of Hideout annexed an area located in nearby Summit County. After Hideout received a certification of the annexation, Summit County challenged the annexation in district court. The district court ruled in favor of Summit County and declared the annexation ordinance was invalid from inception. Hideout appealed, challenging the lower court’s ruling that Summit County had standing to challenge the matter.
Summit County relied on several statutes to argue that it had a legally protected property interest that afforded it standing to challenge the annexation under the Utah Declaratory Judgment Act, including the annexation code itself, and the County Land Use Development and Management Act (CLUDMA), and others.
The Utah Supreme Court reversed, holding that none of these statutes provided the County with a legally protectible property interest that would allow standing.
The annexation code at the time foreclosed outside counties from taking part in the annexation process, and therefore suggests that the legislature did not intend to imply a right of action that would allow a county to challenge the annexation process after the fact. Therefore, the annexation code, at least in the form as it existed for just over 100 days in 2020, did not confer a legally protectible property interest that allowed the County standing. As for CLUDMA, the County cited statutory provisions that pertain to purpose statements describing county land use authority, and to the sections providing for enforcement authority for County regulations. The County argued that because CLUDMA gave it authority over enactment and enforcement of land use regulations within its jurisdiction, it has an interest in opposing the annexation of area within that jurisdiction. The Court disagreed that any of these provisions created a protectible interest, and whereas the annexation code excluded the County from the annexation process, it cannot otherwise evade this built-in statutory restriction by asserting alternative standing.
