Title: Utah Department of Transportation, v. Security Invest Ltd., et al
Citation: 2000 UT 97
Docket Number: 
State: Utah
Issuer: Utah Supreme Court
Date: December 12, 2000

Utah Department of Transportation, v. Security Invest Ltd., et al Annotate this Case Utah Department of Transportation, v. Security Invest Ltd., et al, No. 990369, No. 990652 , Filed December 12, 2000 This opinion is subject to revision before final publication in the Pacific Reporter. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF UTAH ----oo0oo---- Utah Department of Transportation, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Security Invest Ltd., a Utah partnership; Washington National Insurance Company, an Illinois corporation; Hersch & Company, a California general partnership; U.S. Realty 86 Associates, a New Jersey general partnership; C and W Manhattan Associates, a Texas limited partnership; K-Mart Corporation Stores, Inc., aka MacFrugal's Bargain Stores, Inc., a California corporation. Defendants and Appellant. Utah Department of Transportation, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. William K. Olsen (Olson); U.S. Realty 86 Associates, a general partnership; PNS Stores, Inc., aka MacFrugal's Bargain Stores, Inc., a California corporation; and Zions First National Bank, a national association. Defendants and Appellant. No. 990369 No. 990652 F I L E D December 12, 2000 2000 UT 97 ------ Second District Court, Davis County The Honorable Darwin C. Hansen The Honorable Rodney S. Page Attorneys: Jan Graham, Att'y Gen., Steven C. Ward, Steven F. Alder, Asst. Att'ys Gen., Brent Johnson, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff George K. Fadel, Bountiful, for defendents DURHAM, Justice: ¶1 This appeal arises from the trial court's denial of motions by Security Investments Ltd. and William K. Olsen ("defendants") requesting the payment of interest on monies paid to the clerk of court by the Utah Department of Transportation ("UDOT") as consideration for the taking of certain property under Utah's Eminent Domain Statute, Utah Code Ann. §§ 78-34-1 to -20 (1996 & Supp. 1999). We affirm the trial court's denial of interest as against UDOT, since UDOT was no longer a part of the action once it deposited the money with the court. Moreover, we decline to address defendants' argument that the clerk of court, and/or any other persons in control of the monies deposited by UDOT or any interest earned thereon, should pay such interest to defendants, as such persons are not parties to this appeal. ¶2 Affirmed. --- ¶3 Chief Justice Howe, Associate Chief Justice Russon, Justice Durrant, and Justice Wilkins concur in Justice Durham's opinion.