PINETREE ASSOCIATES v. Ephraim City, 20010129.
| Decision Date | 14 March 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. 20010129.,20010129. |
| Citation | 2003 UT 6,67 P.3d 462 |
| Parties | PINETREE ASSOCIATES d.b.a. Pinetree Condominiums, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. EPHRAIM CITY, a municipal corporation, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Wayne H. Braunberger, Sandy, for plaintiff.
Ken Chamberlain, Richard K. Chamberlain, Richfield, for defendant.
¶ 1 This case involves a suit by Pinetree Associates d.b.a. Pinetree Condominiums ("Pinetree") to recover overcharges for water usage from Ephraim City, a Utah municipal corporation.
¶ 2 Pinetree Condominiums consists of thirty condominium units ("condominiums") in one structure located in Ephraim City. The members of Pinetree are the owners of those thirty units.
¶ 3 Ephraim City maintains a public utility system that provides water and electricity to residents in dwelling units in Ephraim City, including the condominiums.
¶ 4 When the condominiums were built, only one culinary water line and one meter were installed to service all thirty units. According to the affidavit of Pinetree's general contractor, unidentified personnel from Ephraim City recommended to Pinetree that the best way to set up the condominium project was with one water line and one meter.
¶ 5 On or about June 19, 1991, Ephraim City adopted a new water rate resolution. That water rate resolution reads:
¶ 6 After the passage of this water rate resolution, Ephraim City assessed Pinetree thirty separate minimum rate charges instead of one minimum rate charge for water measured through its one culinary water line and meter.
¶ 7 On February 4, 1994, Pinetree filed the present suit against Ephraim City, alleging six causes of action and seeking, among other things, a refund of water payments it paid as a result of Ephraim City's change in assessment for water pursuant to the June 19 water rate resolution.
¶ 8 The trial court dismissed Pinetree's first two causes of action upon Ephraim City's motion to dismiss those claims. The parties then filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the remaining causes of action. The trial court granted Pinetree summary judgment on Pinetree's third and fifth causes of action. These causes of action asserted that Ephraim City's policy of water and electric rate charging violated the uniform operation of laws provision of the Utah Constitution. The trial court granted partial summary judgment on Pinetree's fourth and sixth causes of action. The decisions were "partial" only in that the trial court ordered an accounting by Ephraim City to determine the precise amount of the refund owed to Pinetree.
¶ 9 Ephraim City appeals the trial court's grant of summary judgment, arguing (1) that the trial court misinterpreted the June 19 water rate resolution (this interpretation is presumably the predicate to the trial court's conclusion that the policy violates the uniform operation of laws provision), and (2) that the affidavits supporting Pinetree's complaint and motion for summary judgment were deficient under rule 56(e) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure and therefore could not be relied upon by the trial court in granting summary judgment.1
¶ 10 On appeal, Pinetree argues that the trial court did not err as a matter of law in its interpretation of the Ephraim City water rate ordinance or in its conclusion that Ephraim City's application of the water rate ordinance violates the uniform operation of laws provision found in article I, section 24 of the Utah Constitution.
¶ 11 "A trial court may properly grant summary judgment when `there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and ... the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.'" WebBank v. Am. Gen. Annuity Serv. Corp., 2002 UT 88, ¶ 10, 54 P.3d 1139 (quoting Utah R. Civ. P. 56(c)); see also Holmes Dev., LLC v. Cook, 2002 UT 38, ¶ 21, 48 P.3d 895. "The propriety of a trial court's grant of summary judgment is a question of law." WebBank, 2002 UT 88 at ¶ 10, 54 P.3d 1139. "In deciding whether summary judgment was appropriate, we need review only whether the trial court erred in applying the relevant law and whether a material fact was in dispute." Id. "`We thus review the trial court's legal conclusions for correctness, according them no deference.'" Id. (citation omitted).
¶ 12 The primary issue presented on appeal in this case is whether "a single culinary water line carrying water into one structure encompassing 30 independent and distinguishable separately-owned condominium units preclude[s] cities (and towns) from assessing an independent monthly charge to each of the separate and individual self-contained... condominium[s]." The resolution of this issue turns entirely upon the water rate ordinance enabling Ephraim City to assess charges for water usage and the method by which those charges are to be calculated. Here, Ephraim City passed a water rate resolution governing the very question presented. Ephraim City may only assess water usage charges consistent with its water rate ordinance. Therefore, our analysis involves interpretation of the governing water rate ordinance and review of whether Ephraim City acted in accordance with that ordinance in assessing water usage charges to Pinetree.
¶ 13 We interpret municipal and county ordinances and resolutions according to our well-settled rules of statutory interpretation and construction. See Salt Lake City v. Roberts, 2002 UT 30, 44 P.3d 767; Durham v. Duchesne County, 893 P.2d 581 (Utah 1995). "When interpreting statutes, we determine the statute's meaning by first looking to the statute's plain language, and give effect to the plain language unless the language is ambiguous." Blackner v. Dep't of Transp., 2002 UT 44, ¶ 12, 48 P.3d 949; see also Dep't of Natural Res. v. Huntington-Cleveland Irrigation Co., 2002 UT 75, ¶ 13, 52 P.3d 1257.
¶ 14 The water rate resolution reads as follows:
¶ 15 The relevant portion of the water rate resolution unambiguously provides that a minimum monthly rate of $10.80 shall be assessed for the first 7,000 gallons of water used per month measured to the customer.
¶ 16 In this case, Ephraim City sent Pinetree one water bill assessing charges for water actually measured through the single water line and meter installed at the condominium complex. In addition, Ephraim City sent thirty separate bills to each of the thirty condominium units assessing the minimum monthly water usage charge of $10.80. These thirty separate bills showed only the minimum monthly charge and not any specific charges for water used by the individual units.2 Only the primary bill for water and sewer services sent to Pinetree showed the actual water usage as recorded by the water meter. Under these circumstances, the billed customer is Pinetree and the measure of water to it as a water customer is determined by the sole water meter installed on the single culinary water line servicing the entire condominium building. According to the plain language of the water rate resolution, Ephraim City may not assess thirty separate minimum monthly charges to the individual condominium units, as it did, because water is not "measured," that is, run through a measuring device such as a meter, to each of those units. The water to the condominium units is measured to Pinetree through its one meter.
¶ 17 Therefore, the trial court did not err as a matter of law in its interpretation of the Ephraim City water rate resolution. Nor did the trial court err as a matter of law in its subsequent conclusion, based on that interpretation of the water rate resolution, that Ephraim City did "not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grynberg v. Questar Pipeline Co.
... ... Manning, Alan C. Bradshaw, Jack M. Morgan, Salt Lake City, for plaintiffs ... Reha Deal, Susie ... ...
-
Pugh v. Draper City
...of statutory construction is that we determine "[a] statute's meaning by first looking to the statute's plain language." Pinetree Assocs. v. Ephraim City, 2003 UT 6, ¶ 13, 67 P.3d 462 (internal quotation omitted); see also Lovendahl v. Jordan Sch. Dist., 2002 UT 130, ¶ 21, 63 P.3d 705. The ......
-
Settlers Landing, LLC v. W. Haven Special Serv. Dist.
...and county ordinances and resolutions according to our well-settled rules of statutory interpretation and construction.” Pinetree Assocs. v. Ephraim City, 2003 UT 6, ¶ 13, 67 P.3d 462. “When interpreting statutes, we determine the statute's meaning by first looking to the statute's plain la......
-
Intermountain Sports, Inc. v. DOT, 20031029-CA.
...and enforced many times without implementing legislation, see Spackman, 2000 UT 87 at ¶¶ 12, 16, 16 P.3d 533; see also Pinetree Assocs. v. Ephraim City, 2003 UT 6,¶ 17, 67 P.3d 462; and (3) the historical context in which the framers adopted the clause shows that they intended to constituti......