Summary
The Supreme Court of Utah held that Utah Code section 10-2-422, which creates a conclusive presumption of valid annexation under specified conditions, is not a statute of limitations. The court concluded that the catch-all four-year limitations period under Utah Code section 78B-2-307(3) governed Richard Davis's challenge to Provo City's 1978 annexation of his property. Because the challenge was filed more than four years after the annexation, the court affirmed its dismissal.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Utah Code section 10-2-422, which creates a conclusive presumption that an annexation is valid when specified conditions are met, is a statute of limitations governing challenges to annexations.
- Whether Utah Code section 78B-2-307(3)'s four-year catch-all statute of limitations applies to Davis's challenge to Provo City's 1978 annexation.
Holdings
- Section 10-2-422 is not a statute of limitations. It establishes a substantive conclusive presumption of valid annexation when its conditions are satisfied and does not prescribe a period within which an annexation challenge must be filed.
- Utah Code section 78B-2-307(3)'s four-year catch-all limitations period governs Davis's challenge because section 10-2-422 does not provide a different limitations period.
Key quotations
“Since section 10-2-422 is not a statute of limitations, we affirm the district court's holding that the catch-all four-year limitations period applies and that Mr. Davis's cause of action against Provo City should be dismissed for failure to timely file.” (193 P.3d at 92; ¶ 29)
“Since section 10-2-422 does not establish any time within which the challenge must be brought, it is not a more specific statute of limitations provided by statute. Indeed, it is not a statute of limitations at all.” (193 P.3d at 90; ¶ 18)
Factual background
Provo City annexed the Heritage Mountain tract in 1978. Richard Davis and Greg Sperry purchased a mining claim within the annexed area in 1998, and Davis later alleged that the annexation had not complied with statutory procedures and was void. Because of a mapping error by the Utah State Tax Commission, the property was treated as entirely within unincorporated Utah County and Davis did not receive assessments for Provo City taxes. Davis filed his annexation challenge decades after the annexation.
Procedural history
Davis sued multiple parties concerning partnership and property disputes and later amended his complaint to add Provo City, alleging that the 1978 annexation of his land was procedurally invalid and void. Provo City moved to dismiss on statute-of-limitations, laches, and governmental-immunity grounds. The district court held that Utah Code section 78B-2-307(3)'s four-year catch-all limitations period applied, rather than section 10-2-422, and dismissed the annexation claim. The Utah Supreme Court affirmed.