Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Court of Appeals hears dispute over mayoral hire, council ratification and severance in Muser v. Apple Valley
Summary
At oral argument the Utah Court of Appeals examined whether an employment contract signed by an outgoing mayor—containing a severance clause and a severability provision—became enforceable despite a failed council ratification vote, with parties disputing apparent authority, ratification by conduct, and whether factual issues preclude summary judgment.
The Utah Court of Appeals heard argument in Muser v. Apple Valley over whether an employment agreement the mayor signed created enforceable severance rights even though the town council did not formally ratify the hire.
Appellant counsel Justin Haidderman told the panel the case centers on whether the written contract (with a severability clause) governs despite a statute that requires council advice and consent. "Does the very nature that this is a government contract ... do the statutes override whether private rights override whatever private rights he had under that contract," Haidderman asked, arguing the trial court identified material factual disputes that should preclude summary judgment.
Apple Valley's attorney, Roger Hu, told the court the trial court correctly found the mayor did not obtain the required advice and consent and that the contract was therefore entered in violation of law and void as an ultravires act. Hu argued that "this type of contract requires the advice and consent of the town council" and that the statute reflects the public policy and shared authority underlying such appointments.
The judges pressed both sides on two recurring themes: (1) whether a contract that fails to obtain the required council approval may nonetheless be enforced because the mayor had apparent authority and the employee relied to his detriment, and (2) whether the council's subsequent conduct—permitting the appointee to continue working and paying him for about six weeks after a 2‑1 vote that did not ratify the hire—amounted to ratification by conduct. Counsel for the appellant argued that continued employment and payment created reasonable reliance; the city's lawyer answered that the contract was void when the ratification failed and that the municipality complied with its ordinances.
The panel also questioned whether the enforcement question is legal (one for the court) or factual (one for a jury), with the bench noting the district court found material factual issues. The court asked about the nature of the claimed detriment—appellant said the primary loss alleged at summary judgment was the severance the employee negotiated when he relocated to accept the post.
After limited rebuttal, the court said it would take the matter under advisement and issue a written decision in due course.
