Opinion ID: 2626015
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: A County's Refusal to Transmit the Record Is Reversible Error

Text: ¶ 34 Cloudrock argues that, even if the district court erred by reaching the merits of the Citizens' claims without a transmitted record, the Citizens are not entitled to relief on this ground because they have failed to establish that there is a reasonable likelihood that the district court's decision would have been different had a record been transmitted by the County. Cloudrock is correct in noting that, under CLUDMA, land use decisions are presumed valid, [29] and the party challenging the decision bears the burden of proving that the land use authority erred. [30] We have also stated in the past that the mere fact that a land use decision violates a provision of CLUDMA does not justify reversing the decision unless the violation was prejudicial. [31] And finally, we have repeatedly declined, in the nonadministrative appellate context, to presume prejudice or reversible error based on the absence of a complete record. [32] Instead, when a record is so incomplete that it renders effective review of a lower court's action impossible, we have simply declined to disturb the status quo. [33] ¶ 35 But a district court's review of a county land use decision presents a different case. First, the legislature has specifically placed the burden of transmitting a record on the County. [34] Second, the record of a land use decision is in the custody of the opposing partythe land use authority, who is also the appellee. And third, CLUDMA's provisions expressly limit the reviewing court to considering evidence in the record when reviewing the challenged decision. [35] Taken together, these three realities evidence a legislative intent that review of a land use decision will involve a record and that the party challenging the decision will not bear the burden of obtaining and presenting that record to the court. ¶ 36 We would fail in our duty to give effect to this legislative directive if we found that a land use authority's duty to provide a record of proceedings to the reviewing court could only be enforced upon a showing of prejudice by the appealing party. A party required to prove prejudice as a prerequisite for relief bears the burden of showing that an error was so substantial that there is a reasonable likelihood that, absent the error, the result would have been different. [36] When the alleged error is the failure to transmit a complete record, or, as in this case, the failure to transmit any record at all, the party can only show prejudice by obtaining and presenting the absent record to the court. This is directly contrary to the legislature's express instruction on how this burden is to be allocated in appeals of land use decisions. ¶ 37 Accordingly, we hold that the statutory provision requiring a land use authority to transmit a record of proceedings below to the reviewing court may be enforced simply upon a showing that the complete record has not been transmitted. And if a land use authority refuses to provide a complete record after a court's express direction to do so, the reviewing court should grant appropriate relief to the appealing party. In an extreme case, such relief may include ruling in favor of the appealing party on the merits of its claims. [37] ¶ 38 In this case, it is undisputed that the County did not transmit a record of the proceedings before it to the district court. [38] We remand this case back to the district court with the instruction that the County be ordered to transmit the record of proceedings to the district court, which will then proceed to the merits of the Citizens' claims in light of the transmitted record.