When can Utah courts appoint a special master under Rule 53? Washington Conservancy v. Washington Townhomes Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals recently clarified the standards for appointing special masters in Washington County Water Conservancy District v. Washington Townhomes, reversing a district court’s order that would have outsourced a complex impact fee case to a retired judge.

Background and Facts
The case involved a decade-long dispute over impact fees charged by the Washington County Water Conservancy District from 2006 through 2017. Property owners sued, alleging the fees violated Utah’s Impact Fee Act and seeking millions in refunds. After years of litigation, including discovery and motion practice, the property owners moved for appointment of a special master, citing the case’s complexity and “esoteric issues” related to the Impact Fee Act. The district court granted the motion, reasoning that the judge’s pending retirement, the case’s length, COVID-19 calendar congestion, and complexity constituted exceptional circumstances.

Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether the district court’s stated reasons satisfied the “exceptional condition” requirement of Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 53(b). Rule 53(b) provides that in bench trials, reference to a special master “shall, in the absence of the written consent of the parties, be made only upon a showing that some exceptional condition requires it.”

Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals systematically rejected each justification. First, judicial retirement is routine and cannot constitute an exceptional condition, as it would make special master appointments commonplace rather than exceptional. Second, case length alone cannot justify appointment, since many cases involve protracted litigation. Third, calendar congestion from COVID-19 affected all cases equally, making it a normal rather than exceptional circumstance. Finally, the court noted that legal complexity weighs against special master appointment because legal conclusions receive no deference and must ultimately be decided by the district court anyway.

Practice Implications
This decision reinforces that Rule 53(b) appointments must truly be exceptional. Practitioners should understand that routine circumstances like judicial changes, lengthy litigation, or calendar pressures cannot justify special master appointments. The decision also clarifies that legal complexity, as opposed to factual complexity, generally counsels against appointment since legal issues must be reviewed de novo anyway. For cases involving complex factual determinations with thousands of discrete accounts or calculations, Plumb v. State may still provide a pathway, but the bar remains high.