Ufbdh v. Davis County Clerk

• Decision Date: 21 December 2007
• Docket Number: No. 20060321.,20060321.
• Citation: 2007 UT 97,175 P.3d 1036
• Parties: UTAHNS FOR BETTER DENTAL HEALTH-DAVIS, INC., a Utah nonprofit corporation, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DAVIS COUNTY CLERK, Steven S. Rawlings, Defendant and Appellee.
• Court: Utah Supreme Court

175 P.3d 1036

2007 UT 97

UTAHNS FOR BETTER DENTAL HEALTH-DAVIS, INC., a Utah nonprofit corporation, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DAVIS COUNTY CLERK, Steven S. Rawlings, Defendant and Appellee.

No. 20060321.

Supreme Court of Utah.

December 21, 2007.

Rehearing Denied January 16, 2008.

David R. Irvine, Janet I. Jenseon, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff.

Melvin C. Wilson, Farmington, J. Kevin Murphy, Salt Lake City, for defendant.

DURHAM, Chief Justice:

¶ 1 Utahns For Better Dental Health-Davis, Inc. (UFBDH) appeals from the district court's denial of an attorney fee award.

We reverse the district court and award UFBDH attorney fees in this matter under the private attorney general doctrine.

BACKGROUND

¶ 2 During the November 2000 general election, Davis County citizens voted on an opinion question that asked, "Should fluoride be added to the public water supplies within Davis County?" With fifty-two percent of voters favoring the addition of fluoride to water supplies and forty-eight percent opposing fluoridation, the addition of fluoride was approved. A group of Davis County citizens opposed to fluoridation subsequently sought to have a revote on the issue, circulating a petition among voters so that the identical opinion question from the 2000 general election would be on the ballot during the 2002 general election. Treating it as an initiative petition, the Davis County Clerk submitted the petition to the Davis County Commission, which took no action on it. Pursuant to Utah Code section 20A-7-501(3)(d),¹ the County Clerk stated that he would place the opinion question on the ballot during the 2002 general election.

¶ 3 UFBDH, a nonprofit corporation organized to advocate for the public health benefits of fluoridation, questioned the constitutionality of placing the revote question on the 2002 ballot. It sought a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against the Davis County Clerk and the Davis County Commission. The Commission was dismissed from the suit, but the district court found in favor of UFBDH and against the County Clerk. Recognizing the "`sacrosanct and fundamental right'"² to legislate directly through the initiative and referenda processes, the court held that the County Clerk's decision to place the petition "on the ballot violate[d] Utah constitutional and statutory law governing initiatives and referenda." If classified as a referendum, the petition was untimely, and if viewed as an initiative, the petition was "an inappropriate mechanism to change the law of fluoridation within Davis County." The court stated that allowing the petition to be placed on the ballot would be a "misuse [of] the people's direct legislative power" granted in article VI, section 1 of the Utah Constitution and would "thwart the will of a majority of Davis County voters." The court noted that "the public ha[s] a real and substantial interest in ensuring that the laws of initiative and referenda are scrupulously followed and the election process adheres to the rule of law."

¶ 4 UFBDH motioned for an award of attorney fees pursuant to the private attorney general doctrine, which the district court denied. UFBDH appealed, and the court of appeals concluded that the district court had "failed to enter adequate subsidiary findings to justify its ultimate conclusion," eliminating the court of appeals ability to meaningfully review the case. Utahns For Better Dental Health-Davis, Inc. v. Davis County Comm'n, 2005 UT App 347, ¶ 12, 121 P.3d 39. The court of appeals remanded for the entry of adequate findings and conclusions and a decision in accordance with those findings and conclusions. Id. ¶ 13. The district court did so, again denying an award of attorney fees. In explaining the denial, the district court relied on the lack of a substantial monetary benefit created by UFBDH's actions, a lack of a windfall to the Davis County Clerk, and the ability of UFBDH to pay its own attorney fees. It stated that the "mere interpretation of a contested petition" was not a strong or societally important public policy issue and that no "actual or concrete benefits" were created by this case. UFBDH appealed from that order. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Utah Code section 78-2-2(3)(j) (2002).³

ANALYSIS

¶ 5 "In general, Utah follows the traditional American rule that attorney fees cannot be recovered by a prevailing party unless a statute or contract authorizes such an award." Hughes v. Cafferty, 2004 UT 22, ¶ 21, 89 P.3d 148. "However, in the absence of a statutory or contractual authorization, a court has inherent equitable power to award reasonable attorney fees when it deems it appropriate in the interests of justice and equity." Stewart v. Utah Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 885 P.2d 759, 782 (Utah 1994). This court has recognized the private attorney general doctrine as one method for granting equitable awards of attorney fees. In Stewart, this court explicitly relied on the private attorney general doctrine to require an award of attorney fees when the "`vindication of a strong or societally important public policy' takes place and the necessary costs in doing so `transcend the individual plaintiffs pecuniary interest to an extent requiring subsidization.'" Id. at 783 (quoting Serrano v. Priest, 20 Cal.3d 25, 141 Cal.Rptr. 315, 569 P.2d 1303, 1314 (1977)). We also commented on the "exceptional nature" of the Stewart case, and stated that "any future award of attorney fees under [the private attorney general doctrine would] take an equally extraordinary case." Id. at 783 n. 19.

I. DE NOVO REVIEW IS THE APPRPRIATE STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR ATTORNEY FEE AWARDS UNDER THE PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL DOCTRINE

¶ 6 This case presents only the second opportunity we have had since Stewart to review a trial court's denial of attorney fees pursuant to the private attorney general doctrine. Our first opportunity was in Shipman v. Evans, 2004 UT 44, 100 P.3d 1151, where we, without analysis as to the unique nature of the private attorney general doctrine, simply imported the abuse of discretion standard from Hughes. In Hughes, we considered equitable awards of attorney fees after Stewart. We were not, however, considering the private attorney general doctrine, but rather equitable awards of attorney fees in the context of a beneficiary suing a trustee and vindicating the rights of all other harmed beneficiaries. Hughes, 2004 UT 22, 1122, 89 P.3d 148. In Shipman, we failed to acknowledge the unique policy implications associated with the private attorney general doctrine. Today we recognize that the highly deferential standard of review utilized for other equitable awards of attorney fees is unsuitable for private attorney general doctrine cases and conclude instead that de novo review should be applied.⁴

¶ 7 In Hughes, 2004 UT 22, ¶ 24 n. 2, 89 P.3d 148, our determination to apply the abuse of discretion standard of review to equitable awards of attorney fees was based largely upon our discussion in State v. Pena, 869 P.2d 932, 936 (Utah 1994), of the opportunities for trial courts to "assess the credibility of witnesses and to derive a sense of the proceedings as a whole, something an appellate court cannot hope to garner from a cold record." Trial court determinations of attorney fee cases are generally multilayered,⁵ and much of the trial court's work relies on its traditional capacity to evaluate witnesses' credibility, the weight of factual evidence, and the satisfaction by parties of their burdens of proof. Considerations like these, however, are not primarily implicated in cases involving the private attorney general doctrine. Part of the trial court's function in attorney fee deliberations depends on an understanding and proper interpretation of the applicable legal standard. Cf. City of Sacramento v. Drew, 207 Cal.App.3d 1287, 255 Cal.Rptr. 704, 710 (1989) (considering whether the grounds given by the trial court in denying an attorney fee award were consistent with the legal principles, substantive law, and the policy and purpose behind the private attorney general doctrine). Appellate courts do not, for example, generally defer to a trial court's determination as to whether a party has prevailed within the meaning of a contract or a statute, or as to whether a particular dispute qualifies for coverage under an attorney fee provision. See, e.g., Still Standing Stable, LLC v. Allen, 2005 UT 46, ¶ 8, 122 P.3d 556 ("Whether the trial court properly interpreted the legal prerequisites for awarding attorney fees under [the statute] is a question of law that we review for correctness." (internal quotation marks omitted)). The determination as to whether the Stewart extraordinary case standard has been met similarly requires legal analysis.⁶

To leave to trial courts the determination of the existence of an extraordinary case under Stewart on an individual case-by-case basis without meaningful review by this court, which articulated the underlying doctrine permitting fees, would lead to inconsistency and even potential arbitrariness in its use and availability.

¶ 8 In Trivate attorney general cases, the threshold issue is a rather transcendent, large picture question of public policy, namely, whether an important right affecting the public interest has been vindicated. A de novo standard of review of the grant or denial of fees in private attorney general cases is necessary to promote uniformity and predictability in these rare cases, to maintain judicial consistency and integrity in the use of the doctrine, and to encourage the private enforcement of important rights affecting the public interest. Because the threshold issue is one of public policy, appellate judges, who have the benefit of deliberating as a panel and reviewing the well-considered arguments of the parties on appeal, have an advantaged position to review such considerations.

II. AN AWARD OF ATTORNEY FEES TO UFBDH IS APPROPRIATE IN THIS CASE

¶ 9 This case presents an...