Salt Lake City v. Layton

Salt Lake City v. Layton

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

----ooOoo----

Salt Lake City Corporation,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

Donald W. Layton and Michael Layton,

Defendants and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)
 

Case No. 20030706-CA
 

F I L E D
(January 15, 2004)
 

2004 UT App 4

 

-----

Third District, Salt Lake Department

The Honorable Timothy R. Hanson

Attorneys: Donald W. Layton, Salt Lake City, Appellant Pro Se

Marco B. Kunz, Salt Lake City, for Appellee

-----

Before Judges Bench, Davis, and Thorne.

PER CURIAM:

Donald W. Layton appeals the judgment on the pleadings in favor of Salt Lake City Corporation, which resulted in an order requiring Layton to correct zoning violations on six properties, allowing the Salt Lake City/County Health Department to act to abate the violations if he did not, and granting the City a monetary judgment for accrued fines. This case is before the court on the City's motions for dismissal and summary affirmance.

"A court may enter judgment on the pleadings when the moving party is entitled to judgment on the face of the pleadings themselves." Mountain America Credit Union v. McClellan, 854 P.2d 590, 591 (Utah Ct. App. 1993). "We affirm a judgment on the pleadings only if, as a matter of law, the nonmoving party . . . could not prevail under the facts alleged." Id. Therefore, "we give such a ruling no deference and review it for correctness." Id. "On appeal from the grant of a motion for judgment on the pleadings, we take the factual allegations of the nonmoving party as true, considering such facts 'and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in a light most favorable to the [nonmoving party].'" Straley v. Halliday, 2000 UT App 38,¶2, 997 P.2d 338 (citing Golding v. Ashley Cent. Irrigation Co., 793 P.2d 897, 898 (Utah 1990)).

In its Amended Order, the district court concluded that the City set forth all elements of a claim for relief for violation of Salt Lake City Code §21 A. 40.140 and that Layton had not disputed those allegations. Review of the record demonstrates that the district court's conclusions are correct. Section 21 A. 40.140 makes it "unlawful to permit the outdoor storage of inoperable, unused or unlicensed vehicles, vehicle parts, appliances, interior furniture, discarded building materials, landscape debris; or other spent and useless items commonly known as junk unless the premises is licensed for such use." The City's complaint incorporated six notices of the zoning violations issued over the three-year period prior to initiation of this action, including the final notice dated July 26, 2002, allowing a final 30-day period in which to correct the violations. Layton filed a number of documents in the district court (and now on appeal) referencing this and other cases. However, none of the materials can reasonably be construed as either answering, or stating a defense to, the allegations of the complaint in this case. Accordingly, the district court did not err in granting the City's judgment on the pleadings.

Accordingly, we grant the City's motion for summary affirmance, and affirm the judgment on the pleadings in favor of Appellee Salt Lake City Corporation.(1) Based upon our disposition we do not address the City's separate motion to dismiss, and we deny Appellant's motion for stay.

______________________________

Russell W. Bench,

Associate Presiding Judge

______________________________

James Z. Davis, Judge

______________________________

William A. Thorne Jr., Judge

1. Our disposition relates solely to the only appeal now before us, i.e., the appeal in Third District Court case no. 020910671. This decision does not dispose of any claim asserted in any other district court or appellate case involving Donald W. Layton.