Grant v. Utah State Land Bd., No. 12286

• Court: Supreme Court of Utah
• Writing for the Court: CROCKETT; CALLISTER
• Citation: 26 Utah 2d 100,485 P.2d 1035
• Parties: d 100 Maurice GRANT, Plaintiff, v. UTAH STATE LAND BOARD, Defendant.
• Decision Date: 02 June 1971
• Docket Number: No. 12286

Page 1035

485 P.2d 1035 26 Utah 2d 100 Maurice GRANT, Plaintiff,
v.
UTAH STATE LAND BOARD, Defendant. No. 12286. Supreme Court of Utah. June 2, 1971.

[26 Utah 2d 101] Clyde, Mecham & Pratt, Frank J. Allen, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff.

Vernon B. Romney, Atty. Gen., Sheridan L. McGarry, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salt Lake City, for defendant.

CROCKETT, Justice:

In this proceeding the plaintiff Maurice Grant seeks to reverse the action of Utah State Land Board in denying his application for reinstatement of certain contracts of purchase of State land.

The essential facts are not in dispute: The plaintiff had acquired personally, and by approved assignments, certain contracts of purchase of State lands, which were payable in installments. The payments were delinquent in January, 1966, and after proper notice remained delinquent in excess of 90 days, and were forfeited in accordance with the provision of Sec. 65--

Page 1036

1--47, U.C.A.1953. ¹ Nearly three years later, on April 16, 1969, plaintiff presented his application for reinstatement of the contracts, together with one year's interest, as required by the section referred to. There had been no sale or lease of the lands meanwhile.

The issue in this case is brought into sharp focus by the plaintiff's statement that the following portion of said Sec. 65--1--47 vests in him 'the absolute right to reinstate a forfeited certificate at any time before lands described in the certificate are made subject of another sales or lease agreement':

* * * Any person whose contract of sale has been forfeited may upon application have his contract reinstated at any time before the land has again been sold or leased by paying one year's interest, and if said land has been leased, the board may reinstate said contract at the termination of said lease, or within thirty days thereafter, upon the payment of one year's interest as aforesaid.

The Land Board contends to the contrary: that the statute is permissive; and that the plaintiff's contract having been forfeited, he may have it reinstated only at the discretion of the Board.

It is to be conceded that the problem involves some perplexity. This is particularly[26 Utah 2d 102] so because upon a first-blush impression from reading the above-quoted portion of the statute by itself, the meaning might seem to depend upon where the emphasis is laid. Plaintiff argues that the language of the first emphasized clause, which deals with land which has not been leased, in stating that a purchaser '* * * may upon application have his contract reinstated' clearly mandates that the contracts must be reinstated. He contrasts this with the subsequent emphasized clause, which deals with land which has been leased, with respect to which it states that '* * * the board may reinstate said contract at the termination of the lease * * *.' He urges that there is sufficient contrast between the two provisions to indicate that the former is mandatory and the latter is discretionary.

We are constrained to agree that this argument projected by plaintiff is not entirely without plausibility. Assuming then, for the purpose of our analysis of this statute, that there are different interpretations that reasonably may be given its language, there are certain principles relating to statutory construction which may be resorted to for assistance in arriving at a proper solution to this problem.

Foundational rules require that we assume that each term of a statute was used advisedly; ² and that each should be given an interpretation and application in accord with their usually accepted meaning, ³ unless the context...