Can laches bar constitutional challenges to trust modifications? FLDS v. Hon. Lindberg Explained

The Utah Supreme Court’s decision in FLDS v. Hon. Lindberg demonstrates how the equitable doctrine of laches can bar even constitutional challenges when parties delay too long in filing their claims. This case provides crucial guidance for practitioners on the importance of timely challenging adverse court orders.

Background and Facts

The case arose from a complex trust dispute involving the United Effort Plan Trust, originally formed in 1942 by a fundamentalist religious group. In 2005, the Utah Attorney General petitioned for removal of trustees for breach of fiduciary duty. The district court appointed a special fiduciary and in 2006 modified the trust using the cy pres doctrine under Utah Code section 75-7-413, reforming it to be administered under neutral, non-religious principles rather than church doctrine. The 2006 reformation order was never appealed.

Key Legal Issues

Nearly three years later, the FLDS Association filed a petition for extraordinary writ under Rule 65B, challenging the trust modification as violating the First Amendment and Utah constitutional provisions. The Association also alleged ongoing discriminatory administration of the trust. Respondents argued the claims were barred by laches due to the Association’s delay in filing.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court applied the two-element test for laches: (1) lack of diligence by the petitioner, and (2) injury resulting from that lack of diligence. The court found the Association’s nearly three-year delay demonstrated lack of diligence, particularly given the district court’s invitation for interested parties to participate in the reformation process. During this delay, numerous transactions occurred, parties changed positions, and the special fiduciary entered irrevocable obligations in reliance on the modification. The court distinguished Papanikolas Bros. Enterprises, where prompt negotiations excused delay, noting the Association’s negotiations didn’t begin until nearly two years after the modification.

Practice Implications

This decision emphasizes that laches can bar even constitutional claims when filed after unreasonable delay. The court’s analysis shows that delay is measured not just by length of time, but by the prejudice to relying parties and the reasonableness of any explanation for delay. For trust litigation specifically, practitioners should note that court invitations to participate create additional urgency to act promptly or risk waiver of objections to proposed modifications.