WVC v. Roberts
Annotate this Casepublication in the Pacific Reporter.
IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
----ooOoo----
West Valley City,
Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
Greg Roberts and Roberts
Roofing, Inc.,
Defendants and Appellants.
OPINION
(For Official Publication)
Case No. 990349-CA
F I L E D
December 9, 1999
1999 UT App 358
-----
Third District, West Valley
Department
The Honorable Ann Boyden
Attorneys:
Greg Roberts, Salt Lake
City, Appellants Pro Se
Elliot R. Lawrence, West
Valley City, for Appellee
-----
Before Judges Wilkins, Greenwood, and Jackson.
WILKINS, Presiding Judge:
¶1.
Appellants Greg Roberts
and Roberts Roofing, Inc. sought review from an order by the West Valley
City Community and Economic Development Department (the City) finding appellants
in violation of certain West Valley City Uniform Building Code provisions.
Appellants appeal the trial court's ruling dismissing their petition for
review of this administrative decision and denying appellants' request
for a hearing de novo. We reverse in part, affirm in part, and remand.
BACKGROUND
¶2.
The facts pertinent to this
appeal are without dispute and may be summarily stated.
¶3.
The City issued a Notice
of Violation to appellants stating that the roofing repair work performed
by them at a residence in West Valley City failed to conform to the City's
building code. Appellants requested a hearing pursuant to the code.
¶4.
The City held an informal
administrative hearing regarding the alleged building code violations as
permitted by West Valley City Code § 10-2-509. Thereafter, the administrative
hearing officer issued an administrative code enforcement order, pursuant
to West Valley City Code § 10-2-511, finding appellants in violation
of various provisions of the code. Pursuant to section 10-2-601 of the
City Code, appellants filed a petition to review the hearing officer's
decision in the appropriate trial court.(1)
Appellants immediately attempted to have the audio
tapes of the hearing transcribed and transmitted to the trial court. However,
appellants were informed that the tapes of the hearing were blank as a
result of an equipment malfunction. As a result, appellants asked the trial
court for a hearing de novo.
¶5.
The trial court denied the
request for a hearing de novo because section 10-2-601 restricts the court's
review to the record of the proceedings. The court dismissed the petition
to review the administrative officer's decision because there was "no record
to review." This appeal followed.
ISSUES AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶6.
In this appeal we consider
whether the City's defective recordation of the administrative hearing
amounts to a violation of appellants' due process rights and whether the
trial court's failure to rule on the petition for review, grant the hearing
de novo, or remand the matter for a rehearing was erroneous. Due process
challenges are questions of law that we review applying a correction of
error standard. See Tolman v. Salt Lake County Attorney,
818 P.2d 23, 28 (Utah Ct. App. 1991).
ANALYSIS
1. Due Process Violation
¶7.
Appellants first argue that
the City's improper recording and maintenance of the administrative hearing
record is a due process violation in that it deprived them of their right
to meaningful judicial review of the administrative code enforcement order.
We agree.
¶8.
Both the United States Constitution
and the Utah Constitution guarantee due process of law in governmental
actions in which life, liberty, or property may be at risk. However, we
need not reach this constitutional level of analysis here because procedural
due process is guaranteed to the appellants by the West Valley City Code.
¶9.
The Utah Legislature has
granted general welfare powers to cities which include the power to pass
city ordinances. See Utah Code Ann. § 10-8-84 (1999). Also
included in this grant of authority is a city's power to use administrative
hearing procedures to enforce local ordinances. See, e.g., Tolman,
818 P.2d at 28 & n.6 (stating "[p]rocedural rules may appear in statutes,
ordinances, or even in an administrative body's own rules"). While strict
rules of procedure need not apply in an administrative hearing, an administrative
body may make procedural rules which it is then bound to follow. See
id. Here, West Valley City's ordinance requires the City to record
administrative enforcement hearings by audio tape. See West Valley
City Code § 10-2-509(5).(2)
Both parties concede that this ordinance requires the hearing to be recorded
by audio tape. We agree. See id. The statutory scheme revealed by
the City Code makes plain that one of the primary purposes for the mandatory
recording of the proceedings is to allow review of the record by the district
court, and to limit that review to the record produced in the administrative
hearing.
¶10.
In this case, for whatever
reason, the tape recorder utilized by the City malfunctioned at the hearing.
There is no recording, and therefore no transcript, of any portion of the
proceeding. This glitch, albeit inadvertent, violates the mandatory language
of West Valley City's municipal code. Nonetheless, the City argues that
this malfunction does not rise to the level of a due process violation
because the City followed its procedures by "attempting" to record the
hearing. Alternatively, the City maintains that an adequate record exists
in the form of documentary evidence.
¶11.
Due process "requires that
there be a record adequate to review specific claims of error already raised."
State v. Russell, 917 P.2d 557, 559 (Utah Ct. App. 1996) (Footnote
omitted). However, we do not presume error simply because a record is incomplete
or unavailable. See id. at 560 (holding defendant not "unqualifiedly
entitled to a complete record"); State v. Morello, 927 P.2d 646,
649 (Utah Ct. App. 1996) (holding no presumption of "error simply because
record is unavailable"). Rather, lack of an adequate record constitutes
a basis for remand and a new hearing only where: (1) the absence or incompleteness
of the record prejudices the appellant; (2) the record cannot be satisfactorily
reconstructed (i.e., by affidavits or other documentary evidence); and,(3)
the appellant timely requests the relevant portion of the record. See
Russell, 917 P.2d at 558-59 & n.1; Morello, 927 P.2d
at 649;
Littlefield v. State, 839 P.2d 134, 138-39 (N.M. Ct. App.
1992); see also Emig v. Hayward, 703 P.2d 1043, 1048-49 (Utah
1985) (requiring timely request for transcript or appellant assumes risk
of loss);
Department of Community Affairs v. Utah Merit Sys. Council,
614 P.2d 1259, 1261 (Utah 1980) (although record was deficient due to loss
of witness's testimony, resulting from tape recorder malfunction, affidavits
cured defect); Tolman, 818 P.2d at 27-28 n.5 (stating while minor
omissions in transcript may be inconsequential or may be corrected through
affidavits, numerous omissions from transcript constitute grounds for new
hearing).
¶12.
The purpose of recording
and maintaining a record of a hearing "is to allow both for public inspection
and to create a record that an appellate court may use to evaluate the
basis of an . . . [administrative decision]." Studor, Inc. v. Examining
Bd. of Plumbers, 929 P.2d 46, 49 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996); see
Tolman, 818 P.2d at 27-28 n.5. The mandatory language of the ordinance
required the hearing to be recorded by audio tape. The appellants timely
demanded the transcript. The unavailability of the transcript was through
no fault of the appellants. And the information in the transcript is unavailable
through other means such as affidavits or other documentary evidence.
¶13.
We reject the City's argument
that there was sufficient documentary evidence on the record to cure this
defect. The record before us is devoid of any documentary evidence on this
matter. The City's attachment of various documents in the appendix of its
brief does not automatically render the documents part of the record. See
Olsen v. Park-Craig-Olson, Inc., 815 P.2d 1356, 1359 (Utah Ct. App.
1991) (disregarding affidavit appearing in addendum of brief when party
did not seek leave to supplement record). Rather, the City must supplement
the record by following the appropriate appellate procedure rules of this
state. See Utah R. App. P. 11(h). The City's failure to do so constrains
us to disregard this evidence and reject their argument. The complete absence
of a record prevents meaningful review of the City's action at the hearing,
and ultimately results in prejudice to appellants.
¶14.
We hold that the appellants'
due process rights were violated by the City's failure to adequately keep
a record of the proceedings, leading inevitably to the dismissal of the
appellants' petition for review.
¶15.
We reject the City's argument
that it followed appropriate procedures by "attempting" to record the hearing.
The City's attempted recording falls short of the mandates of the municipal
code. See Springville Citizens v. City of Springville,
979 P.2d 332, 337 (Utah 1999) (word "shall" in city ordinance was mandatory;
district court's use of "substantial compliance doctrine" was erroneous).
As such, we reverse the trial court's dismissal of appellants' petition
for review and remand the matter to the trial court with instructions that
it remand the matter to the City for a new hearing.(3)
As in this case, a new hearing is appropriate when a record is so incomplete
that a person is denied meaningful judicial review. SeeTolman, 818 P.2d at 27-28 n.5 (granting new hearing before administrative body because
of partial record); Littlefield, 839 P.2d at 138 (noting remanding
and rehearing remedy); Orage v. Pennsylvania, 482 A.2d 1174, 1177
(Pa. Commw. Ct. 1984) (remanding for proper proceeding when Board failed
to make a stenographic record of hearing) rev'd on other grounds,
515 A.2d 852 (Pa. 1986).
2. De Novo Hearing
¶16.
Appellants also argue that
the trial court erred in denying them a hearing de novo. Appellants contend
that Xanthos v. Board of Adjustment, 685 P.2d 1032 (Utah 1984) dictates
that a hearing de novo would be an appropriate remedy in this case. We
disagree. Xanthos does not stand for this proposition. Rather, in
that case, the supreme court overturned the trial judge's decision to review
an appeal de novo.
See id. at 1038. Here, no provision in the City's
ordinance authorizes de novo review of the City's actions. See West
Valley City Code § 10-2-601(3) (indicating district court shall presume
decision is valid and review record to determine whether decision was arbitrary,
capricious or illegal). As such, we affirm the trial court's denial of
the appellants' motion for a hearing de novo.
CONCLUSION
¶17.
The City's failure to properly
record and maintain an audio recording of the administrative hearing, as
mandated by the City's ordinance, created a situation which denied appellants
meaningful judicial review. We therefore hold that the appellants were
denied their procedural due process rights and reverse the trial court's
dismissal of appellants' petition for review. We remand the matter to the
trial court with instructions to remand to the City for a new hearing.
Moreover, because a hearing de novo is not provided for by law under these
circumstances, we affirm that part of the trial court's ruling.
______________________________
Michael J. Wilkins,
Presiding Judge
-----
¶18.
WE CONCUR:
______________________________
Pamela T. Greenwood,
Associate Presiding Judge
______________________________
Norman H. Jackson, Judge
1. Section
10-2-601 provides, in part that:
(1) Any person adversely
affected by any decision made in the exercise of the provisions of this
Chapter may file a petition for review of the decision or order with the
district court within 30 days after the decision is rendered.
. . . .
(3) The courts shall:
(a) Presume that
the administrative code enforcement hearing officer's decision and orders
are valid; and
(b) Review the record to
determine whether or not the decision was arbitrary, capricious, or illegal.
West Valley City Code §
10-2-601.
2. Section 10-2-509(5) provides, in part, that: "All hearings are open to the public. They shall be recorded by audio tape." (Emphasis added.)
3. Appellants also ask that we require the City to bear all financial burden incurred by the necessity of a rehearing. However, Appellants offer no legal authority for our including such a requirement, nor are we aware of any authority applicable to a circumstance like this one. As such, Appellants' request is denied, and each party will be required to bear its own financial costs incurred in the rehearing.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.