Can claim preclusion bar subsequent inverse condemnation claims? Brian High Development v. Brian Head Town Explained

In Brian High Development v. Brian Head Town, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether claim preclusion can bar a subsequent inverse condemnation action and reinforced pleading requirements for constitutional claims. The court affirmed summary judgment for the defendant municipality on all claims.

Background and Facts

Brian High Development (BHD) acquired property from Greyhound Financial Corporation, which had previously sued Brian Head Town in 1989. That earlier litigation resulted in a 1994 summary judgment dismissing Greyhound’s claims. BHD later sued the Town asserting three claims: inverse condemnation, equal protection violations under a class-of-one theory, and breach of contract related to water and sewer work performed by a contractor.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed three primary issues: whether claim preclusion barred BHD’s inverse condemnation claim based on the prior Greyhound litigation; whether BHD adequately pleaded its equal protection claim; and whether genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment on the contract claim.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court applied the three-part test for claim preclusion: same parties or privies, same claim that was or could have been raised, and final judgment on the merits. Finding all elements satisfied, the court affirmed dismissal of the inverse condemnation claim. The 1994 order specifically addressed and rejected “Plaintiff’s claims for inverse condemnation,” establishing that Greyhound had raised such claims. For the equal protection claim, the court found BHD failed to allege the required “totally illegitimate animus” necessary for a class-of-one theory. Finally, on the contract claim, the court noted BHD’s failure to comply with Rule 7’s requirements for controverting facts, resulting in all the Town’s facts being deemed admitted.

Practice Implications

This decision highlights critical procedural requirements in Utah litigation. When opposing summary judgment, practitioners must strictly comply with Rule 7’s fact-controverting requirements or risk having opposing facts deemed admitted. For constitutional claims, particularly equal protection under a class-of-one theory, mere allegations of disparate treatment are insufficient—plaintiffs must plead specific facts showing illegitimate governmental animus.