Opinion ID: 2640723
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the district court's disconnection decision

Text: ¶ 24 Before the district court, Bluffdale moved to dismiss the Developers' disconnection petition, arguing, among other things, that the petition was facially defective because less than fifty percent of the owners of real property within the Disconnection Area filed the petition with the court and therefore the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The district court dismissed the Developers' initial petition but granted them thirty days' leave to file an amended petition containing the names of more than fifty percent of the real property owners. The Developers promptly filed an amended petition with the names of more than fifty percent of the real property owners. Bluffdale sought permission to file an interlocutory appeal of the court's jurisdictional ruling on this matter, but the court of appeals denied such permission. [5] ¶ 25 After a four-day bench trial, the district court held that the petitioners had met their burden of proving the statutory prerequisites to disconnection and granted their disconnection petition. Bluffdale now appeals this decision, and we have jurisdiction pursuant to Utah Code section 78-2-2(3)(j).