Utah Court of Appeals hears challenge to Grantsville annexation, dispute over standing and attorney fees

SALT LAKE CITY

The Utah Court of Appeals heard arguments on a dispute over whether sponsors of a proposed municipal incorporation have the legal standing to challenge Grantsville City's acceptance of an annexation petition and whether an award of attorney fees under Rule 65(a) was supported by the record.

At the start of the argument, the panel, led by Judge Harris and sitting with Judges Mortensen and Luthy, announced the case: ERDC Community Association v. Skywalk Development. Janet Conway, counsel for the sponsors, told the court she would address two main issues: standing and the propriety of an award of Rule 65(a) attorney fees to Skywalk Development. "There are two issues I would like the opportunity to address today," Conway said.

Why it matters: The appeal asks whether the sponsors of an incorporation initiative—who say the initiative fixed municipal boundaries—may bring suit to block an annexation that they contend altered those boundaries, and whether a lower court properly calculated fees awarded to a developer identified as Skywalk Development.

Conway's argument centered on three bases for standing: (1) a pre-existing constitutional right tied to the initiative process, (2) public-interest/open-courts standing under state law, and (3) common-law authority to challenge unlawful governmental action. She told…