West Valley City v. Marden King

WVC v. King

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

----ooOoo----

West Valley City, a municipal corporation,

Plaintiff, Counterclaim-

Defendant, and Appellee,

v.

Marden King,

Defendant, Counterclaim-

Plaintiff, and Appellant,

v.

Ryan D. Robinson and Terrie Nordell,

Counterclaim-Defendants

and Appellees.

MEMORANDUM DECISION

(Not For Official Publication)
 

Case No. 20020785-CA
 

F I L E D

(February 13, 2003)
 

2003 UT App 43

 

-----

Third District, West Valley Department

The Honorable Terry Christiansen

Attorneys: Marden King, West Valley City, Appellant Pro se

Jody K. Burnett and Robert C. Keller, Salt Lake City, for Appellees

-----

Before Judges Davis, Orme, and Thorne.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Marden King appeals a judgment in favor of West Valley City in an action seeking collection of civil penalties and administrative fees assessed in administrative proceedings. This case is before the court on a sua sponte motion for summary disposition.

The proceedings that resulted in imposition of civil penalties and administrative fees were initiated pursuant to provisions of the West Valley City Municipal Code, entitled Administrative Code Enforcement Hearing Program. See generally West Valley City Municipal Code §§ 10-1-101 to 10-4-404 (1997). King did not seek judicial review of the order of an Administrative Law Judge dated October 24, 2000. See id. § 10-2-601(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."). Thereafter, West Valley City filed a complaint seeking collection of unpaid civil penalties and administrative fees in the total amount of $18,258.00.

In the district court case, West Valley City sought collection of the debt resulting from the administrative proceedings. King apparently did not avail himself of the remedy of seeking judicial review of the administrative ruling, but sought to collaterally attack the administrative ruling in the debt collection case. Even assuming that these claims were not wholly barred by failure to raise them in a timely petition seeking judicial review, King has not raised any claim meriting reversal. First, he identifies no factual issues that would preclude summary judgment on the complaint. Second, although King refers to alleged theft of his property, the City agreed to compensate him for the total amount of his disputed "Notice of Claim." Third, any issues of improper service were resolved when the original default judgment was set aside. King subsequently submitted to the court's jurisdiction by both answering and seeking affirmative relief through a counterclaim.

Finally, King complains that he was assessed fines of over $18,000.00 before having ever been served. However, King fails to distinguish the original administrative proceedings in which the penalties and fees for code violations were actually assessed and the district court proceeding to collect the previously determined debt. Any procedural irregularities that might have existed in the administrative proceedings are not properly before this court in this appeal.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

______________________________

James Z. Davis, Judge

______________________________

Gregory K. Orme, Judge

______________________________

William A. Thorne Jr., Judge