Jeffs v. Stubbs

970 P.2d 1234 (1998)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints organized a movement called the Priesthood Work to continue the practice of plural marriage outside that church. In the early part of this century, they in an isolated area to avoid interference with their religious practices. They secured a large tract of land in this area, and adherents of The Work began to settle there. They continued to secure additional land in the area. Adherents bought land and deeded it to The Work. Eventually, the leadership of The Work formed a trust to hold title to the land. This trust failed, and, for the most part, the land was deeded back to those who contributed it. In 1942, the Priesthood Council signed and recorded in Mohave County, Arizona, a Declaration of Trust for the United Effort Plan. After the Priesthood Council formed the UEP, adherents deeded most of the land that had been held by the first trust to the UEP. Over the years, the UEP acquired more land as adherents obtained and deeded it to the trust. The UEP currently owns all the land occupied by Ps. Members who built on the trust land were aware that they could not sell or mortgage the land and that they would forfeit their improvements if they left the land. UEP did encourage its members to improve the lots assigned to them and represented to its members that they could live on the land permanently, by using such phrases as 'forever' or 'as long as you wanted.' The leaders also told members that having a home on UEP land was better than having a deed because creditors could not foreclose upon the land for members' debts. Eventually, adherents of The Work split into two groups: one group, led by Rulon T. Jeffs ('Jeffs'), acquired control of the UEP. A second group, led by J. Marion Hammon and Alma Timpson, includes most of the Ps in the present case. In 1986, Jeffs declared that all those living on UEP land were tenants at will. In 1987, Ps filed an action asking the court to determine their rights in the property. UEP (D) filed an unlawful detainer action and several quiet title actions against some of the claimants in state court in 1989 and 1993. The state court stayed these cases pending resolution of Ps' federal action. In 1993, the federal district court dismissed the federal claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and dismissed the pendent state law claims without prejudice. Ps then filed an action in Utah's district court in Washington County. The state court consolidated their action with the D's previously filed unlawful detainer action and several quiet title actions. Ps allege they are entitled to their lots under the Utah Occupying Claimants Act, see Utah Code Ann. §§ 57-6-1 to -8, and, alternatively, that D has been unjustly enriched by their improvements to the land. Ps got relief only on their unjust enrichment claim. It found as a matter of statutory interpretation that they were not covered by the Utah Occupying Claimants Act. Ps appealed. The trial court erred in applying the Act. They also argue that the trial court erred in finding that D is a charitable, not a private, trust--a finding that precluded claimants from prevailing on their claims related to the conduct of the trustees. D asserts that the trial court erred in granting claimants equitable relief, primarily because application of equitable principles to a religious organization violates the Utah and United States Constitutions.