Do administrative appeals survive a claimant's death in Utah? Marriott v. Wilhelmsen Explained

In Marriott v. Wilhelmsen, 2025 UT 35, the Utah Supreme Court addressed whether a claim for judicial review of an administrative decision survives the original claimant’s death. The case provides important guidance on survival of claims and the application of Rule 25 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure.

Background and Facts

Randy Marriott filed an application to appropriate water in 1997. After more than twenty years of proceedings, the Utah State Engineer denied the application in 2018. Marriott appealed to the district court, but died unexpectedly in 2023 while the appeal was pending. His counsel filed a motion under Rule 25(a)(1) to substitute Marriott’s personal representative as plaintiff to continue the litigation. The district court denied the motion and dismissed the case, finding that Marriott’s death extinguished his claim.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether Marriott’s administrative appeal survived his death. The court analyzed two potential sources of survivability: common law principles and the statutory provision creating the claim. Marriott argued that his claim related to property rights and should survive, while appellees contended that only claims for actual property damage survive under common law.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court first examined common law survival rules, noting that tort claims for property damage or conversion survive, while personal tort claims do not. However, Marriott’s claim did not fit any existing common law category—it was neither a tort nor contract claim, but rather an administrative appeal. The court declined to extend common law survival principles to this new type of claim, reasoning that Marriott held only an inchoate right in an unapproved application, not a perfected property right. The court then analyzed Utah Code Section 73-3-14, under which Marriott brought his claim, finding no express survivability provision. The court refused to infer survivability from the statute’s assignment provisions, emphasizing that assignment and survival are distinct concepts.

Practice Implications

This decision has significant implications for Utah practitioners handling administrative appeals. The ruling establishes that administrative claims challenging agency decisions may not survive a claimant’s death unless expressly provided by statute. Attorneys should consider potential survival issues early in administrative proceedings and advise clients accordingly. The decision also clarifies the burden allocation under Rule 25, confirming that the party seeking substitution bears the burden of proving the claim’s survivability. For water rights practitioners specifically, the ruling emphasizes the personal nature of appeals challenging application denials, distinguishing them from claims involving perfected water rights.