Utah Court of Appeals
Can property owners recover attorney fees when forcing government compliance with zoning laws? Culbertson v. Board of County Commissioners Explained
Summary
Property owners sued Salt Lake County for willful violations of its own zoning ordinances in approving a development that blocked access to their property. After prevailing in lengthy litigation that reached the Utah Supreme Court twice, plaintiffs sought attorney fees under the private attorney general doctrine, which the trial court denied.
Analysis
In Culbertson v. Board of County Commissioners, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed when property owners can recover attorney fees under the private attorney general doctrine after forcing a government entity to comply with its own ordinances.
Background and Facts
Property owners Culbertson and Meibos challenged Salt Lake County’s approval of a shopping center expansion that violated county ordinances and blocked access to their property. The county and developer Hermes Associates proceeded with construction despite being notified twice of the violations. After unsuccessful administrative efforts, the property owners filed suit. The case reached the Utah Supreme Court twice, with the court ultimately finding the county and developer willfully and deliberately violated zoning ordinances. The property owners then sought attorney fees under the private attorney general doctrine.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether plaintiffs could recover attorney fees under the private attorney general doctrine when they had some personal stake in the litigation outcome. The trial court denied the motion, finding the litigation primarily benefited the plaintiffs rather than the public. The county also argued governmental immunity and that CLUDMA precluded attorney fee awards.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals reversed, applying de novo review to private attorney general doctrine claims. The court found all three Stewart factors satisfied: (1) the litigation vindicated the important public policy of requiring government to follow rule of law; (2) plaintiffs’ costs transcended their pecuniary interest since they sought only property access, not monetary damages; and (3) the case was extraordinary given the government’s willful violations and refusal to respond to pre-litigation notices. The court rejected the county’s immunity defense, noting governmental immunity does not apply to equitable claims.
Practice Implications
This decision clarifies that having a personal stake doesn’t automatically disqualify private attorney general doctrine claims if the litigation serves broader public policy interests. The court emphasized that forcing government compliance with its own laws benefits the public regardless of plaintiff’s personal interest. Practitioners should document pre-litigation efforts and frame arguments around public benefits of enforcing legal compliance, not just client-specific harm.
Case Details
Case Name
Culbertson v. Board of County Commissioners
Citation
2008 UT App 22
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20060573-CA
Date Decided
January 25, 2008
Outcome
Reversed
Holding
Private attorney general doctrine permits attorney fee awards when litigation vindicates strong public policy by requiring government to follow its own ordinances, even if plaintiffs have some personal stake in the outcome.
Standard of Review
De novo review for private attorney general doctrine attorney fee claims as questions of law; correctness for statutory interpretation issues
Practice Tip
When seeking attorney fees under the private attorney general doctrine, emphasize the broader public benefit of enforcing government compliance with laws, not just the specific harm to your client.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.