Opinion ID: 2453269
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Ombudsman's Office Has Authority to Arbitrate the Issue of Property Ownership as It Applies to Takings and Eminent Domain Disputes Because Property Ownership Is an Essential Element of All Takings and Eminent Domain Claims

Text: ¶ 20 Because the Ombudsman's Office has authority to arbitrate disputes involving takings and eminent domain claims and because property ownership is an essential element of all such claims, the court of appeals erred when it concluded that the issue of property ownership does not fall under the statutory responsibilities of the Ombudsman's Office. ¶ 21 The Ombudsman Act grants the Ombudsman's Office specific authority to use alternative dispute resolution to resolve disputes involving takings and eminent domain issues. The Act states in relevant part that [i]f requested by the private property owner and otherwise appropriate, the Office of the Property Rights Ombudsman shall mediate, or conduct or arrange arbitration for, disputes between private property owners and government entities that involve: . . . takings or eminent domain issues. . . . [14] ¶ 22 The Act defines [t]akings and eminent domain law as the provisions of the federal and state constitutions, the case law interpreting those provisions, and any relevant statutory provisions that: . . . involve constitutional issues arising from the use or ownership of real property. . . . [15] Thus, the Act's plain language specifically incorporates our case law interpreting the takings and eminent domain provisions of the federal and state constitutions into the statutory definition of the subject matter over which the Ombudsman's Office has authority. ¶ 23 When interpreting the takings and eminent domain provisions of the state constitution, we have held that [a] takings claim presents two distinct inquiries: `First, the claimant must demonstrate some [protectable] interest in property. If the claimant possesses a [protectable] property interest, the claimant must then show that the interest has been taken or damaged by government action.' [16] Thus, our case law establishes that possession of a protectable interest is the first required element in any takings claim. And to the degree it is necessary to establish a takings claim, the Act's plain language incorporates the protectable interest element into the subject matter over which the Ombudsman's Office has authority. Property ownership is a protectable interest. So the Selmans must establish that they own the property at issue as the first element of their takings claim and that the Ombudsman's Office has authority to arbitrate the issue. This is not to say that the Ombudsman's Office has authority to resolve all quiet-title disputes between private parties and government entities. The Act does not grant the Ombudsman's Office such broad authority. But here the Selmans have alleged that Box Elder County has taken their property, so the authority of the Ombudsman's Office is not being invoked to resolve a quiet-title disputethe resolution of the issue of title is merely a necessary element of the Selmans' takings claim. And takings claims are within the authority of the Ombudsman's Office. ¶ 24 Accordingly, because the plain language of the Ombudsman Act grants the Ombudsman's Office authority to arbitrate disputes involving takings and eminent domain issues, and because property ownership is a necessary element to all takings and eminent domain claims, we hold that the Ombudsman's Office has authority to determine the issue of property ownership insofar as it relates to the Selmans' takings claim.