Court Opinion

ID: 9793581
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:50:17.709567+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:06:09.517600
License: Public Domain

ELLETT, Chief Justice
(dissenting):
This is an appeal from the granting of an injunction against Mr. Hansen for housing more than four students in violation of Provo City ordinance R-1-8(S), sections 24.-20 and 24.72. Mr. Hansen rented rooms in a house given to him by his mother as a means of earning money to finish his law studies at the University.
The basis of the appeal is that Provo City has a policy of permitting known violations of the ordinance unless and until the neighbors object. If such a state of affairs exists there would be a denial of equal protection of the law. The city would not be uniformly enforcing its ordinance but would leave it to neighbors to decide whether or not to prosecute.
The claim of the appellant seems to be well founded. The testimony of the zoning administrator for Provo City was that he was in charge of the enforcement of the zoning ordinances. On cross examination he testified as follows:
Q Since September of 1974 you have been in charge of enforcement of the zoning ordinance?
A Yes.
Q During that period of time isn’t it a fact that the only means or procedure for enforcing this zoning ordinance has been in response to complaints registered with the City?
A That’s our procedure.
Q And your policy and procedure does not provide for any organized method of determining violation of the ordinance except to respond when people complain about violations?
A No organized method, but if we see an obvious violation we check it out.
Q But almost exclusively you have been complaint responsive in your enforcement?
A Yes.
Q There are no procedures for enforcement except that?
A That’s right.
Q That of responding to complaints?
A That’s right.
Q During this period of time you have become aware of numerous circumstances in the City of landlords who have renters *464and do not comply with the zoning ordinances, isn’t that correct?
A Oh, yes.
This is an equity ease and on appeal this Court is not obligated to follow the findings of the trial court. We may make our own findings of fact, and we should do so when it appears that justice requires that it be done.1
I think that the method of enforcing the zoning ordinances by the plaintiff herein is arbitrary and does not afford the equal protection of the law as required by Article I, section 2 of our Constitution.
I would reverse the judgment of the trial court.
MAUGHAN, J., concurs in the views expressed in the dissenting opinion of EL-LETT, C. J.

. Const, of Utah, Art. VIII, Sec. 9; First Security Bank of Utah v. Demiris, 10 Utah 2d 405, 354 P.2d 97 (1960).