Terracor v. Utah Bd. of State Lands & Forestry

• Decision Date: 07 March 1986
• Docket Number: No. 20270,20270
• Citation: 716 P.2d 796
• Parties: 31 Ed. Law Rep. 1014 TERRACOR, a Utah corporation, Plaintiff, v. The UTAH BOARD OF STATE LANDS & FORESTRY, George Buzianis, Chairman of the Utah Board of State Lands & Forestry, the Utah Division of State Lands & Forestry, Ralph Miles, Director of the Division of State Lands & Forestry, Utah Department of Natural Resources, Temple A. Reynolds, Executive Director of the Utah Department of Natural Resources, Bloomington Knolls Association, a Utah nonprofit association, Joseph E. Jones, Roy Hardy, principals of Bloomington Knolls Association, Defendants.
• Court: Utah Supreme Court

Page 796

716 P.2d 796

31 Ed. Law Rep. 1014

TERRACOR, a Utah corporation, Plaintiff, v. The UTAH BOARD OF STATE LANDS & FORESTRY, George Buzianis Chairman of the Utah Board of State Lands & Forestry, the Utah Division of State Lands & Forestry, Ralph Miles Director of the Division of State Lands & Forestry, Utah Department of Natural Resources, Temple A. Reynolds Executive Director of the Utah Department of Natural Resources, Bloomington Knolls Association, a Utah nonprofit association, Joseph E. Jones, Roy Hardy, principals of Bloomington Knolls Association, Defendants.

No. 20270.

Supreme Court of Utah.

March 7, 1986.

Peter W. Billings, Jr., Denise A. Dragoo, Rosemary J. Beless, Michelle Mitchell, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff.

David L. Wilkinson, Atty. Gen., Anne M. Stirba, Asst. Atty. Gen., Clark Arnold, Salt Lake City, for defendants.

STEWART, Justice:

Pursuant to Rule 65B(b)(3) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, ¹ the plaintiff, Terracor, petitions this Court for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus, directing the Board of State Lands and Forestry and the Division of State Lands and Forestry to rescind a special use lease ("SULA 593") issued by the Board to Bloomington Knolls Association. Terracor alleges that (1) the Board violated U.C.A., 1953, § 65-1-68, ² which permits the Board to sell subdivided school trust lands by public auction but does not allow the Board to dispose of such lands by negotiated leases; and (2) the Board breached its fiduciary responsibility to obtain the highest possible return from school trust lands by issuing SULA 593 without competitive bidding. Terracor claims that extraordinary relief is necessary because it has no plain and adequate remedy at law since section 65-1-9, ³ which provides for appeals from some kinds of Board decisions, does not expressly state that appeals should be to the district court and that under decisions of this Court it is not clear whether this Court or the district court is the proper forum for an appeal in the first instance. Terracor also claims extraordinary relief is appropriate because the language of section 65-1-68 is clear and mandatory, and under Archer v. Utah State Land Board, 15 Utah 2d 321, 392 P.2d 622, 623 (1964), and Hamblin v. State Board of Land Commissioners, 55 Utah 402, 187 P. 178 (1919), as well as Rule 65B, mandamus is an appropriate remedy where a public agency or official has violated a clear duty mandated by statute. The defendants counter that extraordinary relief is improper because Terracor only seeks clarification of an unclear statute and that Terracor had a plain and adequate legal remedy by means of an appeal under section 65-1-9. Since we deny Terracor's petition for an extraordinary writ because it lacks standing, we do not decide these issues.

In late 1983 or early 1984, Terracor approached the State Land Board and sought to acquire the 10.9-acre parcel of land at issue by exchanging an equivalent amount of property that Terracor owned. Some time after that, Bloomington Knolls applied to the Land Board to lease the same 10.9 acres, with the intention of subdividing the parcel for development as homesites. The Board notified Terracor of the competing proposal and explained that to make the land exchange acceptable Terracor would have to offer more land in exchange, or land of a greater value, since the land Terracor had offered would not be developable for several years. The Board also notified Terracor that approval of the lease to Bloomington Knolls would, in effect, constitute a rejection of Terracor's proposal. Terracor did nothing more toward negotiating an exchange. In May, 1984, the Board leased the 10.9 acres of school trust land to Bloomington Knolls.

Terracor protested the Land Board's leasing procedure on the ground that it was contrary to state law and that it would result in unfair competition. On September 18, 1984, the Board ruled that Terracor had waived its right to protest by doing nothing to indicate a continuing interest in the land after being informed of Bloomington Knolls' proposal. The Board also ruled that its procedures were in compliance with state law and that it had not violated its fiduciary responsibilities with respect to the administration of state school trust lands by leasing the disputed parcel pursuant to a negotiated lease rather than by auction.

Terracor then filed this petition for extraordinary relief directly in this Court. Terracor does not assert in this action that the Board erred in refusing Terracor's proposed exchange. Indeed, in its "Petition for Relief Under Rule 65B(b)(3)" filed in this Court, Terracor admits that it does not now challenge the granting of the lease to Bloomington Knolls rather than to it. Thus, the action in this Court is not based on Terracor's losing out to Bloomington Knolls for the parcel in question. Rather, Terracor asserts only that the Board violated state law by leasing rather than selling the parcel in question and violated its fiduciary duty to maximize the return on all school trust lands by negotiating a lease of a portion of those lands rather than requiring competitive bidding. It is noteworthy that Terracor's aborted efforts to acquire the land were based on the same type of negotiated procedure that it now alleges is illegal.

The parties have not raised or addressed the question of Terracor's standing to bring this petition to challenge the legality of the Land Board's lease. However, this Court may address that issue sua sponte. Utah Restaurant Association v. Davis County Board of Health, Utah, 709 P.2d 1159 (1985); Heath Tecna Corp. v. Sound Systems International, Inc., Utah, 588 P.2d 169, 170 (1978). A petitioner for extraordinary relief must have standing, just as any other litigant must have. See, e.g., Startup v. Harmon, 59 Utah 329, 336, 203 P. 637, 640-41 (1921); Crockett v. Board of Education, 58 Utah 303, 309, 199 P. 158, 160 (1921).

The doctrine of standing is intended to assure the procedural integrity of judicial adjudications by requiring that the parties to a lawsuit have a sufficient interest in the subject matter of the dispute and sufficient adverseness that the legal and factual issues which must be resolved will be thoroughly explored. Unlike federal law where standing doctrine is related to the "case or controversy" language of Article III of the United States Constitution, our standing law arises from the general precepts of the doctrine of separation of powers found in Article V of the Utah Constitution. Under Utah law, the doctrine of standing operates as gatekeeper to the courthouse, allowing in only those cases that are fit for judicial resolution. Important jurisprudential considerations dictate that courts confine themselves to resolution of those disputes most effectively resolved through the judicial process, i.e., crystalized disputes concerning specific factual situations. Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 88 S.Ct. 1942, 20 L.Ed.2d 947 (1968); Jenkins v. Swan, Utah, 675 P.2d 1145, 1149 (1983). Thus, the doctrine of standing limits judicial power so that there will not "be a significant inroad on the representative form of government, cast[ing] the courts in the role of supervising the coordinate branches of government ... [and converting] the judiciary into an open forum for the resolution of political and ideological disputes about the performance of government." Baird v. State, Utah, 574 P.2d 713, 717 (1978). See also United States v. Richardson, 418 U.S. 166, 188-92, 94 S.Ct. 2940, 2952-54, 41 L.Ed.2d 678 (1974) (Powell, J., concurring). For this reason, this Court will not lightly dispense with the requirement that a litigant have a personal stake in the outcome of a specific dispute. Jenkins v. Swan, supra, 675 P.2d at 1150; see also Stromquist v. Cokayne, Utah, 646 P.2d 746, 747 (1982); Jenkins v. Finlinson, Utah, 607 P.2d 289, 290 (1980); Jenkins v. State, Utah, 585 P.2d 442, 443 (1978); Sears v. Ogden City, Utah, 572 P.2d 1359, 1362 (1977). Nevertheless, it is difficult to make useful, all-inclusive generalizations that determine whether standing exists in any given case, since the issue often depends on the facts of each case. Kennecott Copper Corp. v. Salt Lake County, Utah, 702 P.2d 451, 453 (1985); Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150, 151, 90 S.Ct. 827, 829, 25 L.Ed.2d 184 (1970).

This Court has referred to three general standards for determining whether a litigant has standing. ⁴ Jenkins v. Swan, supra, 675 P.2d at 1150; see also Kennecott Copper Corp. v. Salt Lake County, supra, 702 P.2d at 454. The premise upon which these standards have been constructed is that issues should generally be litigated by those parties with the most direct interest in resolution of those issues, although in some cases a party who does not have the most immediate or direct interest may have standing.

The first general criterion is that the "[p]laintiff must be able to show that he has suffered some distinct and palpable injury that gives him a personal stake in the outcome of the legal dispute." Jenkins v. Swan, supra, 675 P.2d at 1148. See also Kennecott Copper Corp. v. Salt Lake County, supra, 702 P.2d at 454; Stromquist v. Cokayne, supra, 646 P.2d at 747; Sears v. Ogden City, supra, 572 P.2d at 1362; Main Parking Mall v. Salt Lake City Corp., Utah, 531 P.2d 866 (1975); Johnson v. State Tax Commission, 17 Utah 2d 337, 342 n.7, 411 P.2d 831, 834 n.7 (1966); State v. Kallas, 97 Utah 492, 504, 94 P.2d 414, 420 (1939) (must be personally affected by operation of statute to attack its validity).

Second, if a plaintiff does not have standing under the first criterion, he may have standing if no one else has a greater interest in the outcome of the case and the issues are unlikely to be raised at all unless that particular plaintiff has standing to raise the issue. Kennecott Copper Corp. v. Salt Lake County, supra, 702 P.2d...