Opinion ID: 2640723
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Bluffdale Mountain Homes and South Farm Qualified as Petitioners Under the Disconnection Statute

Text: ¶ 29 The district court had subject matter jurisdiction by virtue of the filing of a petition with the court by Bluffdale Mountain Homes and South Farm challenging Bluffdale City's decision to deny disconnection. Thus, the district court acted well within its discretion in allowing an amendment of the petition. Furthermore, even if we assume that the district court erred in allowing an amendment rather than dismissing the petition without prejudice, the error was harmless. The Developers could have simply filed another petition with the court meeting all of the proper statutory requirements. ¶ 30 The disconnection statute at issue, comprising Utah Code sections 10-2-501 to -510, has been extensively modified since we last reviewed a disconnection case; [7] thus, our review of the statute as presently constituted is one of first impression. Our objective in interpreting a statute is to effectuate legislative intent, and that intent is most readily ascertainable by looking to the plain language of the statute. [8] In doing so, [w]e read the plain language of the statute as a whole, and interpret its provisions in harmony with other statutes in the same chapter or related chapters. [9] ¶ 31 Utah Code section 10-2-501(2) provides as follows: (a) Petitioners proposing to disconnect an area within and lying on the borders of a municipality shall file with that municipality's legislative body a request for disconnection. (b) Each request for disconnection shall: (i) contain the names, addresses, and signatures of the owners of more than 50% of the real property in the area proposed for disconnection; (ii) give the reasons for the proposed disconnection; (iii) include a map or plat of the territory proposed for disconnection; and (iv) designate between one and five persons with authority to act on the petitioners' behalf in the proceedings. Both parties agree that these initial requirements were met. The request for disconnection filed with Bluffdale City (1) contained the names, addresses, and signatures of fifty-two property owners who owned more than fifty percent of the real property in the area proposed for disconnection; (2) gave the reasons for the proposed disconnection; (3) included a map or plat of the territory proposed for disconnection; and (4) designated three individuals with authority to act on the property owners' behalf in the proceedings. ¶ 32 The statute further provides that when a municipality denies a request for disconnection, petitioners may file a petition with the district court challenging the municipality's decision. Section 10-2-502.5(5) states as follows: (a) A petition against the municipality challenging the municipal legislative body's determination under Subsection (4) may be filed in district court by: (i) petitioners; or (ii) the county in which the area proposed for disconnection is located. (b) Each petition under Subsection (5)(a) shall include a copy of the request for disconnection. [10] ¶ 33 Bluffdale argues that the petitioners filing a petition with the district court must be all of the same petitioners that filed a request for disconnection with the municipality and that these petitioners must consist of more than fifty percent of the real property owners in the Disconnection Area. The petitioners in the action filed with the district court consisted of only two property owners out of the original fifty-two that brought the request for disconnection, and those two owned only thirty-one percent of the Disconnection Area. The district court agreed with this interpretation of the statute and dismissed the Developers' initial petition, granting thirty days' leave to file an amended petition containing the names of more than fifty percent of the real property owners. We hold that the district court erred in imposing the requirement that all of the same petitioners that filed a request for disconnection with the municipality must also file the disconnection petition with the district court. ¶ 34 Section 10-2-501(1) defines petitioners as follows: As used in this part petitioners means persons who: (a) own title to real property within the area proposed for disconnection; and (b) have signed a request for disconnection proposing to disconnect that area from the municipality. Thus, according to the disconnection statute, petitioners are persons who own title within the area proposed for disconnection and have signed a request for disconnection with the municipality. Section 10-2-502.5(5)(a)(i) states that such petitioners may file a petition before the district court. Accordingly, a petition in district court may be filed by petitioners who (1) own title to real property within the area proposed for disconnection and (2) have signed a request for disconnection with the municipality. Both Bluffdale Mountain Homes and South Farm clearly qualify as petitioners under this definition and therefore properly filed a petition with the district court. ¶ 35 Significantly, the disconnection statute does not say that all of the petitioners who filed the request for disconnection with the municipality must also file the subsequent petition with the district court. Moreover, although the statute requires the fifty percent threshold as to a request for disconnection with the municipality, it makes no reference to such a threshold in order to file a petition with the district court. Those who file with the district court must simply qualify as petitioners as that term is defined in the statute. Accordingly, the district court had subject matter jurisdiction because Bluffdale Mountain Homes and South Farm owned title to real property within the area proposed for disconnection and had signed a request for disconnection with the municipality.