Summary
The Utah Supreme Court reviewed consolidated appeals arising from the seizure and delayed return of property during a murder investigation. It affirmed dismissal of the Pinders’ claims against county and state defendants, including claims involving governmental immunity, statutes of limitations, inverse condemnation, conversion, negligence, civil conspiracy, and due process. The court also affirmed the denial of attorney fees in the related property-return proceeding.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- When did the Pinders' negligence, conversion, declaratory-relief, civil-conspiracy, and inverse-condemnation causes of action accrue?
- Did the Third District Court have subject matter jurisdiction under the Utah Governmental Immunity Act over the Pinders' claims against the County defendants and assistant attorneys general?
- Were the inverse-condemnation and declaratory-relief claims barred by the applicable four-year statutes of limitations?
- Did preservation and waiver doctrines foreclose review of the claims against the State and Attorney General and the state and federal due-process claims?
- Did the Fourth District Court have subject matter jurisdiction over the attorney-fee requests, and were the Pinders entitled to attorney fees under Utah law or 42 U.S.C. section 1988?
Holdings
- The Pinders failed to show that the Third District Court erred in determining that the negligence, conversion, and Sixth Cause of Action accrued in 2000, while the civil-conspiracy and inverse-condemnation claims accrued by 2009; the same accrual conclusion applied to the claims against the assistant attorneys general.
- The Third District Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the negligence, conversion, and civil-conspiracy claims against the County defendants and assistant attorneys general because those claims were claims for money or damages subject to the Utah Governmental Immunity Act, and the Pinders did not timely file notices of claim.
- The Sixth Cause of Action was not subject to the Governmental Immunity Act to the extent it sought only declaratory relief, but it was subject to the Act to the extent it sought actual, treble, punitive, or other damages.
- The inverse-condemnation and declaratory-relief claims were barred by their four-year statutes of limitations.
- The Pinders waived any challenge to dismissal of the claims against the State and Attorney General and to dismissal of the federal due-process claim; their state due-process claim was unpreserved because it was not timely and specifically presented below.
- The Fourth District Court had subject matter jurisdiction over the petition to recover personal property and over the related requests for attorney fees because the Governmental Immunity Act waives immunity for actions to recover personal property and its notice-of-claim provisions do not apply to fee requests arising during the action.
- The Pinders were not entitled to attorney fees under Utah Code section 78B-5-825 or 42 U.S.C. section 1988.
Key quotations
“a cause of action accrues “upon the happening of the last event necessary to complete the cause of action.”” (¶ 37)
“When potential plaintiffs fail to do so, a district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over any claims they later bring.” (¶ 59)
“We do not look to whether the “harm resulting from the act” is continuous.” (¶ 75)
“This provision requires the court to find that the claim or defense is “(1) without merit, and (2) not brought or asserted in good faith” before awarding attorney fees.” (¶ 100)
Factual background
In 1998, Duchesne County law-enforcement officers executed search warrants and seized vehicles, firearms, photographs, ammunition, and other property from the Pinders' ranch during an investigation of their son John Pinder for a double homicide. Although some property was admitted in John's criminal trial, most of it was not used in criminal proceedings and was not returned until 2017. The Pinders brought multiple actions seeking return of the property or damages, culminating in the Third District action and a Fourth District petition for return of property.
Procedural history
The Pinders filed claims in the Third District Court against Duchesne County, county officials, the State of Utah, and state officials arising from the seizure and retention of their property. The Third District Court dismissed the County defendants' claims on summary judgment and the State defendants' claims under Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), principally based on the Utah Governmental Immunity Act, statutes of limitations, and other procedural grounds. In a separate Fourth District action, the court ordered return of property but denied attorney fees. The Utah Supreme Court consolidated the appeals and affirmed both rulings.