Court Opinion

ID: 9616560
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:47:42.042802+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:58.835614
License: Public Domain

ELLETT, Justice
(concurring and dissenting) .
I concur in the result reached in the main opinion insofar as it prevents Logan City from destroying the plaintiff’s house. However, I dissent insofar as the decisión attempts to hold the ordinance invalid.
The City by ordinance created a board of condemnation with powers as follows':
Whenever the board of condemnation shall have determined that the building constitutes a menace to public safety it shall thereupon find and determine what repairs or alterations are necessary or whether the total destruction of such building is necessary in order that such building shall not constitute a menace to public safety or public health. 'Said board shall also determine and find the length of time necessary to complete such *172repairs, alterations or destructions, such time to begin to run upon service of findings, and said board may for good cause, extend such time not to exceed thirty days.
The ordinance further provided for an appeal from the rulings of the board of condemnation to the “adjustment board”— a board created pursuant to statute, Section 10-9-6, U.C.A.1953. The ordinance further provides: “The adjustment board may confirm, modify or set aside the findings of the board of condemnation. The findings and determinations of the adjustment board shall be final and conclusive.”
Section 10-9-15, U.C.A.1953, states:
The city or any person aggrieved by any decision of the board of adjustment may have and maintain a plenary action for relief therefrom in any court of competent jurisdiction; provided, petition for such relief is presented to the court within thirty days after the filing of such decision in the office of the board.
It thus appears that the ordinance runs counter to the statute.
The guidelines for the board of condemnation are rather general — ■
“ * * * determine whether any building, or other structure constitutes a menace to public health or public safety. * * * ”
Despite the problems presented to us by this appeal, the City of Logan has not seen fit to file a brief in the matter or to present an oral argument to assist us in arriving at a correct determination.
In view of the fact that no opposition has been indicated to plaintiff’s efforts to save his property, I conclude that the intention of the City to destroy the house has been abandoned. I, therefore, would restrain Logan City from destroying plaintiffs house and would reserve my ruling upon the validity of the ordinance in question until such time as we have the belief it of research and argument of counsel for the City. I would require each party to bear its own costs.