Utah Supreme Court
Can implied covenants expand the scope of oral municipal agreements? Jensen v. Redevelopment Agency of Sandy City Explained
Summary
Real estate developer Jensen sued Sandy City and others after they invited a backup developer to create an auto mall project when Jensen failed to secure financing. The federal court dismissed state law claims without prejudice after granting summary judgment on federal claims, and the state court subsequently granted summary judgment on all remaining claims.
Analysis
Background and facts: Paul Jensen, a real estate developer, attempted to finance and develop an auto mall in Sandy City from 1986 to 1989. Mayor J. Steven Newton allegedly promised Jensen that he would “not go to the press” regarding Jensen’s development plans. When Jensen failed to secure financing, Newton contacted Woodbury Corporation to serve as a backup developer. Woodbury successfully developed an auto mall using a commercial subdivision model rather than Jensen’s enclosed complex design.
Key legal issues: The primary issue was whether Newton’s limited oral promise “not to go to the press” could be expanded through the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing to prohibit him from contacting alternative developers. Secondary issues included whether plaintiffs could pursue additional discovery and whether unjust enrichment claims could succeed without a property interest in the disclosed information.
Court’s analysis and holding: The Utah Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment, holding that Newton’s commitment was limited to not disclosing information to the press. The court emphasized that the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing cannot enlarge or expand promises beyond what was actually agreed upon. The court noted that “a court will neither make a better contract for the parties than they have made for themselves nor enforce asserted rights not supported by the contract itself.” Additionally, the court found that plaintiffs lacked any property interest in the auto mall concept, precluding unjust enrichment claims.
Practice implications: This decision underscores the critical importance of comprehensive written agreements in municipal development contexts. Practitioners should ensure that all material terms are explicitly stated rather than relying on oral promises that may be subject to restrictive interpretation. The ruling also demonstrates how res judicata effects from federal court decisions can significantly impact subsequent state court litigation, particularly regarding property rights determinations.
Case Details
Case Name
Jensen v. Redevelopment Agency of Sandy City
Citation
1997 UT
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 960014
Date Decided
August 5, 1997
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A municipality’s oral promise not to disclose plans to the press cannot be enlarged through the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing to include promises not made.
Standard of Review
Summary judgment rulings are reviewed for correctness
Practice Tip
When negotiating municipal development agreements, obtain detailed written contracts rather than relying on limited oral promises that cannot be judicially expanded.
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.