Redevelopement Agency v. Sheldon, Case No. 20000334-CA, Filed November 16, 2000
IN THE UTAH COURT OF
Redevelopement Agency v. Sheldon
of Salt Lake City,
Plaintiff and Appellee,
Robert B. Sheldon,
Defendant and Appellant.
(Not For Official Publication)
Case No. 20000334-CA
F I L E D
November 16, 2000 2000 UT App 321 -----
Third District, Salt Lake
The Honorable Glenn K. Iwasaki
Robert B. Sheldon, Salt Lake City, for Appellant
William D. Oswald and Harold A. Hintze, Salt Lake City, for Appellee
Before Judges Greenwood, Billings, and Orme.
Appellant Robert B. Sheldon appeals the order of immediate occupancy and directed verdict of just compensation. This case is before the court on the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City's motion for summary disposition.
Sheldon certified that he would provide no transcript on appeal. Rule 11(e)(2) of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure requires an appellant who "intends to urge on appeal that a finding or conclusion is unsupported by or is contrary to the evidence" to "include in the record a transcript of all evidence relevant to such finding or conclusion." If an appellant does not provide a trial transcript, "we assume competent and substantial evidence supported the trial court's extensive factual findings." Jeffs v. Stubbs, 970 P.2d 1234, 1240 (Utah 1998). Accordingly, we will not set aside the trial court's findings of fact, and we proceed to review the court's conclusions about the legal effect of the facts as found.
Sheldon owned 10' x 80' of a 24' x 80' parcel of property on which a building approximately 24' x 60' in size had been constructed. He occupied the portion of the property that he did not own only pursuant to a permit from Salt Lake City because it was located within an existing public right of way and dedicated for future expansion of 400 West. He contends the Agency obtained the order of immediate occupancy by misrepresenting that the property was needed to widen 400 West because his subsequent investigation revealed no documents regarding plans to widen the street. It is undisputed that the property was within the Depot District Redevelopment Project Area Plan, that the Agency's board had authorized acquisition of Sheldon's property, and that he occupied the remainder of the property by permit from Salt Lake City. The Agency stated in its reply to Sheldon's counterclaim that the proposed reuse of the property was for widening a street. Sheldon did not demonstrate in the trial court that the Agency fraudulently misrepresented facts.
Sheldon also contends that he was denied a right to participate in the redevelopment under Utah Code Ann. § 17A-2-1214 (1999). The Agency's reply to Sheldon's counterclaim stated that he was given an opportunity, but failed to submit any proposal for reuse, and that the proposed reuse was street widening. In the absence of a transcript, we must presume that the trial court correctly determined that the Agency established the prerequisites to its right to condemn.
Sheldon claims the trial court erred in excluding proposed expert witness testimony in support of a claim that he was entitled to the value of a replacement building. The trial court entered extensive findings of fact in support of its ruling, which we presume to be adequately supported. The proposed testimony failed to consider that Sheldon owned only a portion of the building. In addition, the testimony did not consider necessary economic factors in order to obtain an accurate replacement value for the building constructed in 1961. Consequently. the trial court properly excluded the testimony. Finally, Sheldon's claim that he could elect to require the Agency to replace his non-residential property with a comparable property is without merit. See Utah Code Ann. § 57-12-7 (Supp. 2000).
To the extent that Sheldon
claims he has been denied a right to appeal the decisions of the trial
court, we conclude the claim is without merit. We grant the motion and
affirm the judgment.
Pamela T. Greenwood,
Judith M. Billings, Judge
Gregory K. Orme, Judge