This website is not an official Wasatch County website. It has been my personal website since 2013. It contains various types of information which include personal anecdotes and personal opinions. No opinion posted on this website should be taken as the official position of the Wasatch County Council. -Danny


July 9, 2015 [Link] Utah Court of Appeals - 4th District Court: Fire District Lawsuit Ruling.

Court's Conclusions:
53 We conclude that the monthly fee of $14.81 per ERU is a reasonable fee and that the Fire District can charge the fee from the moment the County grants a density determination. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s decision to the contrary.
54 We affirm the trial court’s ruling that the lump-sum fees are invalid. We remand to the trial court to determine exactly which fees were lump-sum fees that must now be refunded.
55 Because it is legally separate from the Fire District, the County is not jointly liable to refund the lump-sum fees, attorney fees, or any other judgment or obligation for which the Fire District is liable in connection with this case. We reverse the trial court’s determination that the County was jointly liable.
56 We affirm the trial court’s grant of prejudgment interest at 10% per year starting from the moment each landowner paid a lump-sum fee. We remand to the trial court to calculate the prejudgment interest as it applies to the lump-sum fee refund only.
57 We mostly affirm the trial court’s determination to award Highlands its attorney fees. We remand, however, for the trial court to determine which of Highlands’ attorney fees, below and on appeal, are allocable to the lump-sum fee issue and to reassess the amount of those costs versus the amount recovered for the purposes of applying the private-attorney-general doctrine.
58 We reverse the trial court's decision not to apply the discovery rule to toll the statute of limitations, but only insofar as it concerns Mountain Resort’s claim for a refund of its lump-sum fees.
59 Finally, because Pigeonhole’s proposed amendment to its original complaint alleges a new act of misconduct directed against a new party, it does not relate back to its original complaint. We therefore affirm the trial court’s determination that Pigeonhole’s PW] claims are untimely.
60 With the guidance offered in this opinion, the trial court may now fully resolve this conflict, including determining appropriate fees and costs. 18

18. All parties agree that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding the landowners’ expert-witness fees in excess of the statutory rate. Upon remand, if the trial court still determines that an award of these fees is appropriate, it must adhere to the statutory rate.

Upcoming Posted Meetings

For older County Council items [click here].

For radio podcasts [click here].

Need an Eye Doctor? I recommend, my wife, Dr. Tory Goode at Mountain View Family Eyecare:

Mountain View Family Eyecare