## Facts

- Utah County and Provo City planned a collector street connecting Provo Canyon Road and University Avenue to address traffic congestion.
- The proposed road crossed an unincorporated “island” of Utah County owned by Spring Canyon (the landowners and affiliated partnerships).
- Provo City first pursued condemnation, but a prior decision held Provo City lacked authority to condemn property located in unincorporated Utah County.
- While that appeal was pending, Utah County and Provo City entered an agreement under which Utah County would condemn the property and Provo City would pay the expenses.
- Utah County filed a new condemnation action against Spring Canyon and moved for immediate occupancy to proceed with construction.
- Spring Canyon moved to dismiss, arguing the agreement exceeded governmental authority and reflected bad faith, and also challenged immediate occupancy on due process and necessity grounds.
- The district court denied dismissal and granted immediate occupancy after weighing equities; Spring Canyon pursued an interlocutory appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether the condemnation action should be dismissed because the Utah County–Provo City agreement exceeded governmental authority or reflected bad faith intended to evade the earlier ruling against Provo City.
2. Whether granting immediate occupancy violated due process based on inadequate notice of the factual basis for occupancy and denial of discovery into that basis.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion in granting immediate occupancy because Utah County’s showing of necessity was insufficient.

## Decision

- The Utah Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion to dismiss and the order granting immediate occupancy.
- The court held Utah County and Provo City had authority to enter the agreement, and the Interlocal Cooperation Act did not abrogate that contracting authority.
- The court rejected the claim that the agreement showed bad faith, emphasizing Utah County possessed eminent-domain authority over the unincorporated property.
- The court declined to address the state constitutional due process argument because it was inadequately briefed.
- The court held federal due process was satisfied because Utah law provided an adequate mechanism to obtain just compensation notwithstanding immediate occupancy.
- The court held Spring Canyon failed to show the district court abused its broad discretion in weighing equities and determining necessity for immediate occupancy.

## Legal Principles

- A county may condemn property within unincorporated county territory for a public project, even if a city could not condemn the same property due to jurisdictional limits.
- Intergovernmental agreements allocating project roles and costs (e.g., county condemns; city pays) are permissible when each entity acts within its own lawful powers; the Interlocal Cooperation Act does not automatically displace general contracting authority.
- Alleged “circumvention” of a prior decision does not establish bad faith where the condemning entity has independent statutory authority and acts for a public purpose.
- Federal due process in eminent-domain proceedings is satisfied when there is an adequate post-taking process to determine and obtain compensation; immediate occupancy is not unconstitutional on that basis alone.
- Orders granting immediate occupancy and related necessity determinations are reviewed for abuse of discretion, with substantial deference to trial courts’ equitable weighing and to local governmental judgments about public need and timing.

## Conclusion

The Utah Supreme Court sustained Utah County’s condemnation and immediate occupancy, holding the county-city agreement was authorized, bad faith was not shown, federal due process was satisfied by adequate compensation remedies, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding immediate occupancy warranted.


Utah County v. Ivie, 137 P.3d 797 (Utah 2006)