MARGARET H. OLSON (Bar No.

6296)
Summit County Attorney
DAVID L. THOMAS (Bar No. 7106)
Chief Civil Deputy County Attorney
JAMI R. BRACKIN (Bar No. 8753)
Deputy County Attorney
SUMMIT COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
60 N. Main Street, P.O. Box 128
Coalville, Utah 84017
Telephone: 435-336-3206
Fax: 435-336-3287
molson@summitcounty.org
dthomas@summitcounty.org
jbrackin@summitcounty.org

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Petitioner

______________________________________________________________________________

IN THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

IN AND FOR SUMMIT COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH
______________________________________________________________________________

:
SUMMIT COUNTY, a political subdivision : SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT &
of the State of Utah, : PETITION FOR DECLARATORY &
: INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Plaintiff and Petitioner, :
v. : Tier II
:
NATHAN A. BROCKBANK, an individual, :
JOSHUA J. ROMNEY, an individual, RB :
248, LLC, NB 248, LLC, N. BROCKBANK :
INVESTMENTS, LLC, JJR VENTURES, :
LTD, WELLS FARGO BANK, NA, : Civil No. 200500346
REDUS PARK CITY, LLC, UNITED :
PARK CITY MINES COMPANY, and : Judge Richard Mrazik
JUSTIN LAMPROPOULOS. :
:
Defendants and Respondents. :
:
 Plaintiff Summit County (“Summit County” or “Plaintiff Summit County”) by and

through their attorneys, Margaret H. Olson, David L. Thomas, and Jami R. Brackin of the

Summit County Attorney’s Office, pursuant to Utah Code §78B-6-401, Utah Code §17-27a-

611(2)(b), Summit County Code §10-9-19(A), §10-9-20(B), and Rule 65A of the Utah Rules of

Civil Procedure, complain against Nathan A. Brockbank, Joshua J. Romney, RB 248, LLC, NB

248, LLC, N. Brockbank Investments, LLC, JJR Ventures, LTD, Wells Fargo Bank, NA,

REDUS Park City, LLC, and United Park City Mines Company, as follows:

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Summit County has adopted a well-reasoned and publicly supported General

Plan and Development Code to guide growth within the Snyderville Basin. This is the essence

of local control and is essential to the tourism economy which is the life blood of Summit

County. The Richardson Flat area of Summit County is currently zoned for limited residential

development because it is bordered on one side by an EPA superfund site and hazardous waste

repository, and on another side by high density residential development in Wasatch County.

The Town of Hideout (“Hideout”) was incorporated in June 2008. Due to the manner in

which Hideout was incorporated, Hideout has never had adequate municipal revenue and

services.

Defendants Nathan A. Brockbank, Joshua J. Romney, N. Brockbank Investments, LLC,

JJR Ventures, LTD, RB 248, LLC, and NB 248, LLC (together “Brockbank”) entered into a land

purchase agreement with Defendants Wells Fargo Bank, NA and REDUS Park City, LLC

(together, “Wells Fargo”) on a portion of Summit County Tax Identification Parcel (“Parcel”)

2
No.s SS-87 and SS-88. A portion of Parcel SS-87 houses a hazardous waste repository

designated as “OU1.”

Unbeknownst to Plaintiff Summit County, Brockbank and Wells Fargo approached

Hideout (located in neighboring Wasatch County) with a plan to solve their municipal revenue

problems by annexing a high-density mixed-use development into Hideout on lands which

include portions of Parcels SS-87 and SS-88 (located in Summit County). Thus, Brockbank and

Wells Fargo began a course of conduct with the express intent of defeating long standing

annexation laws and the Snyderville Basin General Plan and Development Code through a joint

enterprise which included obfuscation of public processes, interference with property rights, and

misconduct at the Utah Legislature (the “Enterprise”).

In August 2019, Hideout, in coordination with Brockbank and Wells Fargo, and over

Plaintiff Summit County’s objections, enacted an Annexation Policy Plan Amendment. This

Amendment’s annexation area reached across the border and into Summit County at a time

(2019) when state law would not allow for such without the consent of Summit County. In

March 2020, a lobbyist, on behalf of Brockbank, worked outside the normal and appropriate

legislative structures and processes to “bait and switch” legislation that was pending before the

Utah Legislature (HB 359) and replaced it with custom-made special purpose legislation (HB

359S1) benefiting Brockbank and Wells Fargo by negating the requirement of county consent

and restricting the ability of a county or property owner to protest such an annexation to the

Boundary Commission. HB 359S1 became effective on July 1, 2020.

In furtherance of the Enterprise, Brockbank intentionally engaged in a misdirection

campaign with Plaintiff Summit County, meeting twice with representatives of Summit County

3
(November and December 2019), filing an inauthentic General Plan Amendment Application

with Summit County (January and March 2020), and then once the General Plan Amendment

was scheduled for hearings (June and July 2020) before the Snyderville Basin Planning

Commission (“SBPC”), abruptly cancelling those hearings.

Also in furtherance of the Enterprise, Wells Fargo held a meeting with Summit County

officials wherein it floated the idea of Wells Fargo carving off OU1 from Parcel SS-87 through a

foreclosure sale. Summit County officials informed Wells Fargo that such a foreclosure sale

would create an illegal subdivision. Unbeknownst to Summit County, three days later, Wells

Fargo obtained writs of execution to foreclose on portions of Parcels SS-87 and SS-88, and

illegally subdivide those parcels. Thereafter, and without notice to Summit County, Wells Fargo

conducted the Foreclosure Sale (defined below) on February 22, 2020, taking further steps

toward the illegal subdivision.

In a departure from prior practice and in violation of Utah law, Wells Fargo employed a

deputy constable from another county to come into Summit County and conduct a foreclosure

sale of real property, execute the Writs, and issue a “Constable’s Deed,” violating both the terms

of the Writ and the laws governing constables in Utah.

Wells Fargo thereby acquired portions of Parcels SS-87 and SS-88 at the Foreclosure

Sale and then assigned them to Brockbank, who has now recorded and re-assigned them, thus

completing the illegal subdivision. In furtherance of the ongoing clandestine Enterprise,

Brockbank did not attempt to record the Constable’s Deed (defined below) until after the Notice

to Show Cause (defined below) was issued.

4
 In lockstep with these actions, Hideout and Brockbank signed a Pre-Annexation

Agreement and commenced the annexation of non-contaminated portions of Parcels SS-87 and

SS-88. Such annexation is subject to a pending lawsuit and TRO in the Fourth Judicial District

Court, styled Summit County v. Town of Hideout, Civil Case No. 200500072, Fourth District

Court, Wasatch County, State of Utah.

Upon learning of the deception involved in the passage of HB 359S1, the Utah

Legislature repealed such through HB 6007 on August 20, 2020. Pursuant to Utah law, the

repeal does not become effective until October 19, 2020.

On August 21, 2020, Patrick Putt, Community Development Director of Summit County,

issued a Notice to Show Cause to Wells Fargo and United Park City Mines Company as to the

illegal subdivision of Parcels SS-87 and SS-88. Instead of responding as directed, Brockbank

rushed to record the Constable’s Deed.

Hideout, Brockbank and Wells Fargo are racing to complete the annexation of portions of

Parcels SS-87 and SS-88 prior to October 19, 2020 in order to reap the rewards of their

misconduct at the Utah Legislature and the hostile annexation of Summit County lands into

Hideout whose very different zoning requirements will allow the construction of a new

community within Summit County – “North Park” – with 3,500 new residences, 200,000 square

feet of commercial space, 100,000 square feet of office space and all the unmitigated impacts

that come along with that. “North Park” would bring an estimated 10,000 residents to the area,

dwarfing the approximately 900 current residents of Hideout.

This First Amended Complaint and Petition for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief seeks

to prevent Brockbank and Wells Fargo from benefiting from their intentional misconduct in

5
illegally subdividing Parcels SS-87 and SS-88 by (a) invalidating the Foreclosure Sale which

illegally subdivided Parcels SS-87 and SS-88, (b) voiding the Constable’s Deed and any deeds

stemming therefrom, (c) enjoining Brockbank and Wells Fargo from exercising ownership over

Parcels SS-87 and SS-88, and (d) enjoining Brockbank and Wells Fargo from issuing a consent

under Utah Code §10-2-418(3)(c).

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Jurisdiction is proper pursuant to Utah Code §§78A-5-102 and 78B-6-401.

2. Venue is proper pursuant to Utah Code §78B-3-301.

PARTIES

3. Plaintiff Summit County is a political subdivision and county located in the State of Utah.

4. Nathan A. Brockbank is an individual who resides in Salt Lake County, Utah, and is a

principal of N. Brockbank Investments, LLC, and is an alleged owner of Parcels SS-87 and SS-

88 in Summit County, Utah.

5. Joshua J. Romney is an individual who resides in Salt Lake County, Utah, and is a

principal of JJR Ventures, LTD, and is an alleged owner of Parcels SS-87 and SS-88 in Summit

County, Utah.

6. N. Brockbank Investments, LLC is a Utah limited liability company with offices in Salt

Lake County, Utah and whose principal is Nathan A. Brockbank, and is the alleged owner of

Parcels SS-87 and SS-88 in Summit County, Utah.

7. JJR Ventures, LTD is a Utah limited partnership with offices in Salt Lake County, Utah

and whose principal is Joshua J. Romney, and is the alleged owner of Parcels SS-87 and SS-88

in Summit County, Utah.

6
8. RB 248, LLC is a Utah limited liability company with offices in Salt Lake County, Utah,

whose principals are N. Brockbank Investments, LLC and JJR Ventures, LTD, and are the

alleged owners of Parcels SS-87 and SS-88 in Summit County, Utah.

9. NB 248, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with offices in Salt Lake County,

Utah and is an alleged owner of Parcels SS-87 and SS-88 in Summit County, Utah.

10. Wells Fargo Bank, NA is a foreign corporation and is alleged to have owned Parcels

SS-87 and SS-88 in Summit County, Utah.

11. REDUS Park City, LLC is a foreign limited liability company and is alleged to have

owned Parcels SS-87 and SS-88 in Summit County, Utah.

12. United Park City Mines Company is a foreign corporation and record title owner of

Parcels SS-87 and SS-88 in Summit County, Utah.

14. Wells Fargo has a civil Judgment (“Judgment”) against United Park City Mines, of which

$107,391,665.48 is still owing.

13. Justin Lampropoulos is an individual living in Salt Lake County, Utah. On information

and belief, in February 2020 Justin Lampropoulos was a deputy constable working under the

authority of an appointed constable in a county on the Wasatch front. Justin Lampropoulos is,

according to online records, also an executive vice-president of Merit Medical and earns $1.2

million per year.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

Commencement of an Enterprise

14. Parcels SS-87 and SS-88 are located in Summit County, Utah, are not contiguous to

Hideout, and are owned by United Park City Mines Company (“UPCM”).

7
15. Parcels SS-87 and SS-88 are zoned Rural Residential, generally one residential dwelling

unit per twenty (20) acres, which is considered a low residential development zone district under

Summit County Code, Title 10 (the “Snyderville Basin Development Code”), Chapter 2.

16. On information and belief, beginning in early 2019, Brockbank, Wells Fargo, and

Hideout began a scheme and course of conduct designed to defeat Summit County’s ordinances,

rules and regulations with respect to Parcels SS-87 and SS-88, in their effort to engage in urban

development.

Annexation Policy Plan (Town of Hideout)

17. On April 18, 2019, the Hideout Planning Commission began consideration of an

amendment to the Town of Hideout’s Annexation Policy Plan (the “Annexation Policy Plan”),

which plan proposed to include areas of real property within the jurisdictional boundaries of

Summit County; among others, Parcels SS-87 and SS-88.

18. According to the Chair of the Hideout Planning Commission, “the Town has almost no

amenities that most municipalities have such as parks and trails. The thought is that annexation

could possibly provide the Town with revenue, but could also be a way to add property that

could be used to provide amenities.”

19. On June 26, 2019, Plaintiff Summit County sent a letter to Mayor Philip Rubin of

Hideout indicating that pursuant to Utah Code §10-2-402(6) it would “withhold its consent to

any annexation request involving properties located within Summit County.”

20. On June 27, 2019, the Hideout Town Council discussed the proposed amendment to the

Annexation Policy Plan. Council member Kurt Shadle commented that one of the reasons for

8
the plan was to “increase its revenues.” Brockbank appeared at the meeting and gave testimony

in favor of moving forward with the proposed plan.

21. On July 18, 2019, the Hideout Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the

amendment to the Annexation Policy Plan.

22. Plaintiff Summit County appeared at the public hearing to voice its objection to the

inclusion of Parcels SS-87 and SS-88 in the Annexation Policy Plan.

23. According to the Chair of the Hideout Planning Commission, who provided commentary

during the public hearing, “there is a property owner who owns land in both Summit County and

Wasatch County, that has asked to be annexed into Hideout.”

24. On information and belief, those property owners referenced by the Chair of the Planning

Commission are Brockbank and Wells Fargo.

25. On August 1, 2019, the Hideout Planning Commission again considered the amendment

to the Annexation Policy Plan, and again noted that “there are property owners in Summit

County that have asked to be included in the annexation.”

26. On August 15, 2019, the Hideout Planning Commission made a favorable

recommendation on the amendment to the Annexation Policy Plan to the Hideout Town Council.

27. On August 22, 2019, the Hideout Town Council met in open session to consider the

amendment to the Annexation Policy Plan.

28. During the meeting, “Council Member Shadle felt it was important people understood the

Plan was just a plan, for the next 25 years, and would not happen without the input of the people

in the surrounding areas. If they were not supportive of it, it would not be done.”

29. Further, “Mayor Rubin responded that Summit County’s protestations concerning

9
Summit County land were clearly recognized. He explained the Town had also been contacted

by landowners in those areas who were willing to consider a potential participation with Hideout,

and the Plan was reflective of that. The Mayor added Hideout recognized it was not planning to

take any land owned and controlled by Summit County, and if there were areas as such, Hideout

would modify the Plan. However, third party lands located within Summit County would be

included.”

30. The Annexation Policy Plan, Appendix A, notes that in response to Plaintiff Summit

County’s protests, “[s]ome of the parcels that are included are included at the request of property

owners.”

31. On information and belief, the landowners referenced by Mayor Rubin as having initiated

contact with Hideout and requested inclusion of Parcels SS-87 and SS-88 in the Annexation

Policy Plan were Brockbank and Wells Fargo, even though neither was the record title owner at

the time.

32. Thereafter, the Hideout Town Council approved the amendment to the Annexation Policy

Plan which included Parcels SS-87 and SS-88.

33. On information and belief, Brockbank seeks an annexation (the “Annexation”) into

Hideout in order to build a high-density mixed-use development, called “North Park,” which

includes a town center, not less than 200,000 square feet of retail commercial uses, not less than

100,000 square feet of office and industrial uses, and approximately 3,500 residential dwelling

units (“North Park”). North Park would bring an estimated 10,000 residents to the area,

dwarfing the approximately 900 current residents of Hideout.

10
Relevant Legislative Background to HB 359 (2020)

34. The Utah Land Use Task Force (“LUTF”) is a collective group of developers,

municipalities, and counties, together with representatives of the Utah Association of Counties

(“UAC”), the Utah League of Cities and Towns (“League”), and the Utah Property Rights

Coalition (“PRC”). The LUTF meets throughout the year to formulate proposed consensus land

use legislation to resolve issues between the development community and local government.

Michael Ostermiller (“Ostermiller”) is an active participant in the LUTF. Plaintiff Summit

County is, and at all relevant times was, an active participant in LUTF. Bruce Baird (“Baird”)

participates as an active member of the LUTF on behalf of developers. Baird is also the attorney

representing Brockbank.

35. For the 2020 General Legislative Session, the LUTF worked on a consensus piece of

legislation regarding annexations of islands and peninsulas in situations where a municipality

was already providing substantial infrastructure or services to the island or peninsula. This

legislation was intended to address an issue in Weber and Davis Counties dealing with an

annexation which would leave an island or peninsula of unincorporated territory. Weber and

Davis Counties and the affected city were all consulted and agreed to the legislation. UAC and

the League, as well as a representative of Summit County who sits on the ULTF, were heavily

involved in formulating this legislation. This consensus legislation became HB 359.

36. Ostermiller, as an active participant in the LUTF, was aware of this background to HB

359 and of each of the stakeholders’ involvement.

37. Representative Calvin R. Musselman was the primary sponsor of HB 359.

38. Senator Kirk A. Cullimore was the senate sponsor of HB 359.

11
39. HB 359 was introduced in the Utah House of Representatives (“Utah House”) on

February 20, 2020 as a consensus bill, 1 agreed upon by LUTF, Weber and Davis Counties (the

affected counties), Plaintiff Summit County (acting as a member of LUTF), UAC, and the

League.

40. On February 25, 2020, HB 359 was heard before the Utah House Political Subdivisions

Committee. The League and Ostermiller testified in favor of HB 359, and confirmed that it was

a consensus bill. Based upon the consensus nature of the bill, HB 359 passed out of the

committee unanimously.

41. On February 28, 2020, based upon the consensus nature of the bill, the Utah House

passed HB 359 unanimously.

42. On March 4, 2020, HB 359 was heard before the Utah Senate Government Operations

and Political Subdivisions Committee. Victoria Ashby, on behalf of LUTF, and Ostermiller, on

behalf of the PRC and Utah Association of Realtors, testified in favor of HB 359 as a consensus

bill. Based upon the consensus nature of the bill, HB 359 passed out of the committee

unanimously.

Bait and Switch

43. On information and belief, Brockbank, with the approval of Wells Fargo, instructed Baird

and Ostermiller to find a suitable legislative vehicle to substantively change annexation laws so

as to eliminate the required county consent and allow for the Annexation over Plaintiff Summit

County’s protest. That legislative vehicle was HB 359.

1A consensus bill is one where all stakeholders who may be affected by the bill have vetted,
negotiated, and agreed upon the form of the legislation. Legislators understand the nature of
consensus bills and generally do not oppose them out of respect for all of the stakeholders.
12
44. On the night of March 11, 2020, the day before the 2020 Utah Legislative General

Session ended, Senator Cullimore introduced HB 359, 1st Substitute (“HB 359S1”). HB 359S1

included a new provision (nka Utah Code §10-4-418(3)) which provides that a municipality

located in one county can engage in what is now referred to as a “flagpole or cherry stem”

annexation in order to annex areas in a different county without the need for an annexation

petition and without the consent of that different county.

45. Upon information and belief, HB 359S1 was tailor made for Brockbank and Wells Fargo

so they would be able to annex lands in Summit County, including Parcels SS-87 and SS-88, into

Hideout and entirely override Summit County’s Snyderville Basin General Plan and

Development Code. Once annexed, Hideout, not Summit County, would control all the zoning

on Parcels SS-87 and SS-88.

46. Known facts indicate that Representative Musselman gave authority for Baird,

Ostermiller, and Wells Fargo attorney Wade Budge (“Budge”) to work with the Legislative

Research drafter Gus Harb to create HB 359S1. The amendment was thereafter written by Baird

and/or Budge, approved by Mr. Harb, and given to Ostermiller to present to Senate sponsor

Cullimore.

47. The affected county and intended victim of HB 359S1 is Plaintiff Summit County.

48. HB 359S1 was neither vetted by UAC or by Plaintiff Summit County, nor agreed to by

UAC or by Plaintiff Summit County. HB 359S1 was not initiated by LUTF, UAC, the League or

Plaintiff Summit County. Rather, HB 359S1 was initiated by Brockbank to further the

Enterprise.

49. The content of HB 359S1 was never shared with UAC or Plaintiff Summit County.

13
50. HB359S1 was not a consensus bill.

51. On information and belief, Ostermiller did not disclose the contents of HB 359S1 to

either UAC or Plaintiff Summit County, even though he knew both to be stakeholders in HB

359, and knew both would object to the new language.

52. On information and belief, Ostermiller, on behalf of Brockbank and Wells Fargo,

provided HB 359S1 to Senator Cullimore and led him to erroneously believe that the new

language amounted to “technical changes” that were not substantive and that it remained a

“consensus bill.”

53. Ostermiller later stated, “I accept full responsibility for that . . . I want to be 100% clear.

I told Sen. Cullimore and Rep. Musselman there was, as far as I knew, consensus between the

parties involved in drafting the legislation.” Ostermiller’s statement created a false impression

with the legislators. On information and belief, Ostermiller knew there was not consensus of the

counties, did not inform UAC, and created a false impression with the League that the bill

involved the same parties as the original HB 359 and that UAC had consented to it. Ostermiller,

as an active participant in LUTF and as a witness testifying in favor of the bill, knew the limited

nature of the original legislation which had consensus and what it accomplished. Upon

information and belief, Ostermiller knew the amendments in the first substitute which deprived

counties of the ability to protest and withhold consent to annexations of this nature was contrary

to the work of the LUTF in the original bill. Ostermiller admitted to the Deseret News that “an

attorney who was working for developers Brockbank and Romney, Bruce Baird, had input on the

legislation’s language.” Since HB 359 was only directed at an issue in Davis and Weber

Counties, there is no reason for Baird to have been involved in HB 359S1, unless it was to recraft

14
it to benefit his client, Brockbank. Brockbank’s partner, Josh Romney (“Romney”) has admitted

that “I had a couple of attorneys who were watching closely what was happening, so we were

aware of some legislation that was going on.” Romney has also stated that “[a]ny time there’s

legislation that’s getting done that involves land-use authority, we’re always paying attention.

We made sure to hire – we made sure to monitor those things closely.” On information and

belief, those couple of attorneys acting on behalf of Brockbank included Baird and Ostermiller.

54. On information and belief, Ostermiller did not disclose his relationship with Brockbank

or his attorney, Baird, to Senator Cullimore, nor did he disclose that HB 359S1 was intended to

specifically benefit Brockbank and Wells Fargo in the development of “North Park” in Summit

County.

55. On the floor of the Utah Senate, Senator Cullimore, relying upon the false impressions

created by Ostermiller, unintentionally misrepresented to the Utah Senate that HB 359S1 was a

“consensus bill.” More specifically, Senator Cullimore stated: “The substitute – as I understand

– makes some technical changes in a different area of code, so the entire substitute is underlined

and looks like it’s making a lot of changes, but really it changed the title and did some technical

stuff and because of renumbering, it’s all underlined.” Senator Cullimore concluded, “This has

been a consensus bill where you have a landowner who may want to incorporate into a city or

municipality and a municipality that also wants the landowner, but for whatever reason, because

of an unincorporated county it may not be exactly contiguous, so what this does is undoes the

contiguous requirement for annexation in certain counties. This would not be applicable to Salt

Lake County or counties of the first class. And so that’s what this bill does. All parties have

discussed and agreed upon it.”

15
56. In a Deseret News story, Senator Cullimore has stated, “[t]here was a misunderstanding

or misrepresentation to me, so because of that, obviously what I said on the (Senate) floor was

not accurate, so I’m going to be asking for a repeal to correct that.”

57. In under two minutes after introducing HB 359S1, in reliance upon Senator Cullimore’s

unknowing misrepresentation, the Utah Senate voted 27-1 to approve HB 359S1.

58. Approximately forty minutes later, the Utah House voted to concur with the Utah

Senate’s substituted bill, HB 359S1, relying upon the same false impressions created by

Ostermiller to Senator Cullimore that it was a “consensus bill” and amounted to only non-

substantive “technical changes.” Representative Musselman, the primary sponsor, indicated to

the Utah House that the substituted bill only addresses a rare set of circumstances where a

property, which is not contiguous, could be annexed into a local municipality, but assures the

legislators that local control will be maintained because everyone (property owners, city and

county) have to agree on the annexation. HB 359S1 does no such thing.

59. On March 28, 2020, the Governor signed HB 359S1 into law. HB 359S1 became

effective on July 1, 2020.

60. HB 359S1 came to the attention of UAC in early July 2020, after it had already become

law.

61. In early July 2020, Plaintiff Summit County, UAC, and the League approached members

of leadership in the Utah Legislature about the circumstances surrounding the passage of HB

359S1. According to a letter from UAC, dated July 22, 2020:

. . . the substitute bill introduced a new concept that has never been contemplated
under Utah law; the notion that an annexation can occur without consideration from the
underlying county, in some specific circumstances. As the Association of Counties, we

16
believe this to be a dangerous concept that has significant statewide implications, and
should not be classified as mere “technical changes” to the original draft that dealt with
the handling of unincorporated islands when consensus has been reached. This concept
was never presented to the Association of Counties for consideration, and we would not
have supported a position that strips a county of their authority to consult or protest a
contested annexation. Lastly, none of this was ever presented to us in a way that would
have us believe that the bill would be used in Summit County on a long-disputed area of
the county. The discussion around the development of Richardson’s Flats and Quinn’s
Junction has been had for years, and to use this process as an “end-around” to those
deliberations seems flawed, at best.

While the Utah League of Cities and Towns was informed of a substitute, it was
conveyed as “technical changes” and it was inferred that it was for the original use-case,
Davis/Weber County, and the Association of Counties was okay with the proposed
changes. It was never conveyed that the intent was to use this in Summit County on an
already contested land use circumstance, where the annexation was going to be used to
“venue-shop” land-use policy. It is unfortunate that the consultants who were working on
this issue did not convey the intended use of the new language.

It should be further noted that during the House floor presentation on this
language the bill sponsor stated the following:

“If you’ll remember this bill was a consensus bill that came to us from the land use task
force. It was addressing a rare set of circumstances. Where a property could be annexed
into a local municipality that was not contiguous it was a very rare set of circumstances
and everybody had to agree county, city, property owners. . . the amendments even
ratchets that down even a little bit further.” – Day 44 – 8:14 pm MST

Unfortunately, that is the exact opposite of what this bill does. There is no
agreement among the city and county, and the substitute was not a “ratcheting down” of
the original bill, but was rather an expansion of the previous version.

Due to what we, as the Utah Association of Counties, believe to be an

unintentional misrepresentation of this substitute as a “consensus bill” and a “technical
clean-up, where “all parties agree with the annexation” when it in fact is a significant
policy shift in a delicately balanced area of law, we would respectfully request that the
language found in 10-2-418(3) be repealed in a manner that would disallow and
invalidate any current annexation that attempts to utilize this section of code. We would
request that such repeal action be taken at the earliest possible opportunity of the Utah
Legislature.

Like you, we find immense value in the integrity in the legislative process.
When that integrity is questioned, we believe an unhealthy erosion in public trust occurs.
Upon consultation with many of your colleagues, many members of both legislative
bodies used the presentation as a basis for support, despite those presentations falsely
stating the impact of the bill. In order to address the concerns of flawed process, and a
flawed law, we would encourage the parties to work through the Joint Developer/Local

17
 Government Land-Use Taskforce for further consideration of this issue in a future
legislative session.

62. The League sent a letter to Rep. Musselman and Sen. Cullimore on July 27, 2020

complaining about the method in which HB 359S1 was approved.

On Day 44, LUTF member and PRC lobbyist Mike Ostermiller approached
ULCT representative – Layton City Attorney Gary Crane who ULCT had
authorized to be involved in the drafting and negotiating of the initial bill on
behalf of our membership – and shared 1st substitute language. The 1st substitute
empowers cities to annex beyond their county of origin and removes the ability of
any county to protest the annexation. Since the bill expanded city authority, we
expressed our support. However, we also asked whether the counties were on
board because the 1st substitute reduced their land use authority. ULCT assumed
that the counties knew about the impacts of the 1st substitute.

In July 2020, we learned some key facts about the 1st substitute. First, we learned
that the counties were not aware of the 1 st substitute and now adamantly opposed
it. Second, we learned that the 1st substitute targeted a fact pattern in Summit
County that ULCT knew nothing about during the legislative session.

Finally, the original version of HB 359 was a consensus LUTF bill. The LUTF
brings all land use stakeholders to the table to hammer out difficult compromises.
The LUTF process is successful because all stakeholders believe it is best to
thoughtfully vet issues in the interim than to battle throughout the limited time
provided in the legislative session. ULCT is concerned about the integrity of that
process because the legislature modified a consensus bill with major
consequences for one of the LUTF stakeholders. We don’t want the credibility of
the LUTF process to be in question because of a lack of communication during
the final moments of the legislative session.

The outcome of the 1st substitute is a major policy shift without the process of
sufficient stakeholder collaboration. ULCT does not want to benefit from an
outcome without that collaboration. Likewise, legislators voted on the 1 st
substitute under the same impression that ULCT had – that the bill was a
consensus bill – but we all have since realized that the 1st substitute was not
consistent with the original consensus around HB 359. As a result, ULCT

18
 supports the request from the Utah Association of Counties to repeal the 1st
substitute.

63. On August 17, 2020, the Official Call of the Sixth Special Session of the Utah

Legislature included the repeal of HB 359S1. During the Political Subdivisions Interim

Committee meeting on August 19, 2020, Senator Anderegg, the Committee Chair, stated as

follows: “I will just say, because I’m fairly certain that the Judge will most likely listen to this

that as the prerogative of the chair, I will say that I believe the Legislature can act when it has all

the information and that when it thinks it has all the information it will act and when it learns

more information it will unact so that is what we are doing today….”

64. On August 20, 2020, HB 6007, repealing HB 359S1, was introduced and passed by super

majorities in both the Utah House and Utah Senate. Pursuant to Article VI, Section 25 of the

Utah Constitution, HB 6007 has an effective date of October 19, 2020.

Wells Fargo and Parcels SS-87 & SS-88 (Richardson Flat)

65. UPCM is the owner of Parcels SS-87 and SS-88.

66. The Lower Silver Creek Area of Summit County, inclusive of Parcel SS-87, has been

designated as a Superfund Site, Richardson Flat Tailings NPL Site, by the Environmental

Protection Agency (“EPA”).

67. More specifically, Parcel SS-87 is encumbered by Operable Unit 1 (“OU1”), which

houses an active EPA approved hazardous waste disposal facility operated by UPCM.

68. On May 6, 2014, UPCM entered into an Administrative Order on Consent (the “AOC”)

with the EPA, which provided that UPCM was a Responsible Party (“RP”) with respect to the

Richardson Flat Tailings NPL Site.

19
69. On information and belief, UPCM has defaulted on a portion of the AOC, which has

resulted in an enforcement action brought against it by the EPA.

70. On information and belief, the environmental clean-up and remediation costs associated

with the Richardson Flat Tailings NPL Site has been estimated at over $50,000,000.

71. On April 15, 2015, Wells Fargo Bank, NA and Midtown Acquisitions, LP obtained a

judicial judgment against UPCM.

72. On information and belief, over the past five years, Wells Fargo has, in a methodical

manner, foreclosed on nearly all of UPCM’s valuable real property assets.

73. On information and belief, the environmental clean-up and remediation costs of the

Richardson Flat Tailings NPL Site relies in part upon the future sale proceeds of Parcel SS-87,

where OU1 is located.

74. On November 22, 2019, Brockbank invited Wells Fargo to a meeting it had requested

with Summit County representatives to present a potential development plan that included

Parcels SS-87 and SS-88. At the meeting, Wells Fargo proposed carving out OU1 from the rest

of Parcel SS-87 in order to avoid environmental liability. Summit County representatives

indicated to Wells Fargo that foreclosing on only a portion of Parcel SS-87 would (A) constitute

an illegal subdivision of land, and (B) constitute an attempt to defeat the EPA’s goal of

environmental clean-up and remediation of OU1 and the Richardson Flat Tailings NPL Site.

75. Utah Code §10-2-402(3) provides that a parcel to an annexation cannot be split without

the property owners consent. On information and belief, UPCM never consented to the split of

Parcel SS-87 for purposes of the Annexation.

20
76. Three days later on November 25, 2019, Wells Fargo obtained writs of execution to

foreclose only on portions of Parcels SS-87 and SS-88 (the “Writs of Execution”), effectively

subdividing OU1 from the rest of Parcel SS-87, without an approved subdivision plat, so that

Wells Fargo (and subsequent transferees) can avoid any potential environmental liability from

OU1, and further subdividing Parcel SS-87, without an approved subdivision plat, into five (5)

lots or parcels (inclusive of the remainder Parcel SS-87), See Exhibit A, and subdividing Parcel

SS-88, without an approved subdivision plat, into three (3) lots or parcels. This guts the EPA’s

ability to seize Parcel SS-87 and obtain the proceeds of its sale for the purpose of environmental

clean-up and remediation of the Richardson Flat Tailings NPL Site, leaving the taxpayers of

Summit County holding the “proverbial bag” with respect to those environmental clean-up and

remediation costs. On information and belief, these facts were not disclosed by Wells Fargo to

Judge Kent Holmberg who issued the Writs of Execution. The available record in that case

certainly does not indicate that any such disclosure was made. See Wells Fargo Bank, NA, et. al.

v. Talisker Partnership, et. al., Case No. 156500424, Third District Court, Silver Summit

Division, State of Utah.

77. For the past five years, Wells Fargo has regularly obtained writs of execution directing

the Summit County Sheriff to seize UPCM property and sell it to satisfy the judgment. Each of

the prior writs directed at the request of Wells Fargo are addressed to the Summit County

Sheriff. The forms of Writ submitted to Judge Holmberg, and the Writs he signed on November

25, 2019 are directed to the” Summit County Sheriff or Constable”.

78. On information and belief, in order to further the Enterprise and conceal their future

actions to quickly annex Parcels SS-87 and SS-88 into Hideout, Wells Fargo actively sought to

21
avoid the Summit County Sheriff, and instead employed the services of Justin Lampropoulos, a

deputy constable from another county to conduct a purported foreclosure sale pursuant to the

Writs of Execution on February 22, 2020 (the “Foreclosure Sale”).

79. Wells Fargo and its lawyers Snell and Wilmer have been obtaining Writs of Execution

from the Third District Court in Summit County and holding foreclosure sales in Summit County

for years. A five-year look back for all Writs of Execution prior to the November 25, 2020 Writs

reveals that at all times, Wells Fargo has asked Silver Summit judges to issue the Writs to the

“Summit County Sheriff” who has, for years, been holding Sheriff’s Sales at the request of Wells

Fargo. This Writ, however, was presented to Judge Holmberg in proposed form to the “Summit

County Sheriff or Constable”. This was another act in furtherance of the Enterprise.

80. On February 22, 2020 Justin Lampropoulos, calling himself “Constable for the State of

Utah”, held the Foreclosure Sale at the Silver Summit Courthouse located in Summit County.

81. There is no such thing as a “Constable for the State of Utah”. Constables are county

offices and governed by Title 17 of the Utah Code.

82. Justin Lampropoulos has not been appointed or authorized by the Summit County

Council act as a Constable in Summit County as required by Utah law. Utah Code § 17-25a-1.

83. Yet on August 21, 2020, Justin Lampropoulos signed a “Constable’s Deed” which

Brockbank caused to be recorded in the Summit County Recorder’s Office on August 26, 2020.

In the notary block on this deed, Justin Lampropoulos again represents himself as “Constable for

the State of Utah.”

84. While performing any constable duties, a constable is required to prominently identify

the “county or municipality for which the constable is appointed.” Utah Code § 17-25-6(1).

22
85. Online records do not reveal under which county’s appointment or authority Justin

Lampropoulos may have been purporting to act on February 22, 2020 when he came to the Silver

Summit Courthouse and held a sale.

86. On information and belief, in February 2020, Justin Lampropoulos may have been a

deputy constable working under an individual appointed in another county although he is also an

Executive Vice President of Merit Medical.

87. Additionally, under Utah Code § 17-25a-3(2)(a), any constable entering another county

to serve process is required to contact the Sheriff of that county prior to serving process or

seizing (personal) property. Justin Lampropoulos did not contact the Sheriff of Summit County

during February, 2020 prior to conducting the foreclosure sale or at any time. The Sheriff of

Summit County does not know who Justin Lampropoulos is.

88. Constables are authorized to serve any process throughout the state. Utah Code §17-25-

1(2). Constables are not, however, authorized to hold foreclosure sales or issue real property

deeds. Nor may constables execute any process outside the county or city where they have been

authorized. Compare Utah Code § 17-25-1(1) and (2).

89. Utah R. Civ. P. 64 (Writs) provides that writs directing the seizure of real property are

directed to the Sheriff of the County in which the real property is located. Writs for the seizure

of personal property can be directed to any officers; i.e. constables.

90. In fact, there is no such thing as a “Constable’s Deed.” A Westlaw search for this term

reveals that “Constable’s Deed” does not appear in any Rule, Statute, or reported case in the

State of Utah, ever.

23
91. Judge Holmberg reviewed the proposed writs submitted by Wells Fargo and at the time

he signed them, recorded the following minute entry on November 25, 2019:

The court has signed the Proposed Writs, but will need additional information
before granting all of the relief requested in the Applications. Paragraph 4 in each
application asks the court to direct the Sheriff to issue a deed for the real property
sold at Sheriff's sale. The Proposed Writs do not contain this directive to the
Sheriff and are otherwise in order; therefore the court has signed the Proposed
Writs. However, before the court considers an order directing the Sheriff to
sign any deeds, the court will need additional briefing from the parties.

Utah R. Civ. P. 69B(i) governs the documentation provided by the Sheriff

following a Sheriff's sale and provides that the Sheriff shall provide a certificate
of sale containing ''(1) a description of the real property; (2) the price paid; (3) a
statement that all right, title, interest of the defendant in the property is conveyed
to the purchaser; and (4) a statement whether the sale is subject to redemption.''
The Sheriff is then to file a duplicate of the certificate in the office of county
recorder. Id. Rule 69B(i) does not appear to provide the court with the authority to
order that the Sheriff provide a deed as requested in the Applications; nor does a
deed appear to be necessary. The court will need additional authority providing
the court with supporting legal authority before granting this relief.

92. Judge Holmberg signed the Writs of Execution because they did not direct the Sheriff to

issue a deed. While the Writs of Execution were directed to the “Summit County Sheriff or

Constable,” Summit County does not have any constables, the last one having been de-

authorized for misconduct. Moreover, Rule 64(d)(1) does not authorize a constable to conduct a

foreclosure sale of real property. The Writs of Execution and Judge Holmberg’s minute entry

make clear that the official conducting the Foreclosure Sale was not empowered to issue a deed

in any form; rather it said the Sheriff may issue a certificate of sale (Rule 69B).

93. Judge Holmberg’s Writ also directed the “Summit County Sheriff or Constable” to

“[w]ithin ten (10) days after service of this Writ, please return this Writ, along with proof of

24
service of the Writ and, if Property has been seized, an inventory of the Property seized and

whether the Property is held by you or by your designee.”

94. Even though Justin Lampropoulos was purporting to act as a Summit County Constable

with authority to execute this Writ, Justin Lampropoulos did not do the things directed by the

court (issue a certificate of sale, file proof of service and inventory). Justin Lampropoulos

instead did things not authorized by the Writ, i.e. issued a real property deed and called it a

“Constable’s Deed.”

95. By employing Justin Lampropoulos and holding the purported Foreclosure Sale in

Summit County Wells Fargo acquired portions of Parcels SS-87 and SS-88 at the Foreclosure

Sale and assigned their interests to RB 248 LLC, a company under the control of Brockbank.

96. Parcels SS-87 and SS-88 were not subdivided in accordance with state statute or Summit

County Code. Neither Brockbank, nor Wells Fargo ever submitted an application to Summit

County for a subdivision plat on Parcels SS-87 and SS-88. Neither Brockbank, nor Wells Fargo

has ever been granted approval for a subdivision plat on Parcels SS-87 and SS-88. In fact,

according to the official records of Summit County, there is no subdivision plat on file with

Summit County subdividing Parcels SS-87 and SS-88 in the manner set forth in either the Writs

of Execution or Constable’s Deed.

97. On information and belief, Wells Fargo hoped to have a portion of Parcels SS-87 and SS-

88 annexed into Hideout in Wasatch County, where Parcels SS-87 and SS-88 could be granted

urban development, notwithstanding the violations of state and local land use laws.

25
98. On August 21, 2020, Patrick Putt, Community Development Director of Summit County

and land use authority, issued a Notice to Show Cause to Wells Fargo and UPCM as to the

illegal subdivision of Parcels SS-87 and SS-88 (the “Notice to Show Cause”).

99. In response to the Notice to Show Cause, Brockbank rushed to record Justin

Lampropoulos’ Constable’s Deed on August 26, 2020.

100. On the same day, in a continuing effort to obfuscate their actions and create confusion as

to ownership, RB 248, LLC quit claimed the illegal parcels created in the Constable’s Deed to

another Brockbank entity, NB 248, LLC, a Delaware company, which was formed on August 24,

2020, and which is not registered in the state of Utah.

101. In accordance with that certain Amended and Restated Development Agreement for

Flagstaff Mountain, Bonanza Flats, Richardson Flats, The 20-acre Quinn’s Junction Parcel and

Iron Mountain, dated March 2, 2007, and recorded as Entry No 00806100 in the Office of the

Summit County Recorder, Book 1850, beginning at Page 1897, Section 3.1 (the “Flagstaff

Development Agreement”), the property owner of Parcels SS-87 and SS-88 is obligated to annex

these parcels into Park City Municipal Corporation (“Park City”).

102. In accordance with statutory interpretation, the Flagstaff Development Agreement bars

any property owner of Parcels SS-87 and SS-88 from consenting to any annexation that is not

into Park City.

Brockbank

103. On information and belief, beginning in early 2019 and continuing until the present,

Brockbank and Wells Fargo approached Hideout about an Enterprise to annex lands located in

26
Summit County, including Parcels SS-87 and SS-88, into Hideout and entitle those lands with

urban development in exchange for municipal revenue provided by the development of the same.

104. On information and belief, Brockbank and his attorney, Baird, used Ostermiller in his

capacity as a lobbyist for the purpose of influencing the Utah Legislature to unknowingly adopt

tailored-made special purpose legislation meant to benefit Brockbank and Wells Fargo in their

Enterprise to annex the lands, including Parcels SS-87 and SS-88, into Hideout without Plaintiff

Summit County’s consent and without the ability of Summit County to protest such an

annexation to the Boundary Commission.

105. According to public records, Ostermiller did not reveal his relationship with Brockbank

and/or his attorney, Baird, by failing to make the required disclosure as required by the Utah

Lobbyist Disclosure and Registration Act, Utah Code §36-11-101, et. seq.

106. On November 22, 2019, Brockbank met with Summit County officials concerning the

development of lands, including Parcels SS-87 and SS-88. Brockbank was encouraged to file a

development application and go through the statutorily required process that is open to the

public.

107. On December 20, 2019, Brockbank again met with Summit County officials concerning

the development of lands, including Parcels SS-87 and SS-88. Brockbank was again encouraged

to file a development application and go through the statutorily required process that is open to

the public.

108. On January 7, 2020, Brockbank made an application for a General Plan Amendment to

allow for mixed use urban development on various lands, including Parcels SS-87 and SS-88

(the “General Plan Amendment Application”).

27
109. On March 3, 2020, Brockbank amended his General Plan Amendment Application to

exclude Parcels SS-87 and SS-88 because Wells Fargo did not have control or ownership of the

same. However, this is now known to have been untrue, as Brockbank had possession of the

Constable’s Deed, which he elected not to record in order to keep the Enterprise secret.

110. Joshua Romney later told a local newspaper that the General Plan Amendment

Application “had been bogged down,” when in reality it was scheduled to be presented to the

SBPC first at a June meeting and then at a July meeting. However, Brockbank abruptly

cancelled both meetings, the last being through an email from Brockbank received by Plaintiff

Summit County on June 29, 2020.

111. According to Joshua Romney, he concluded that “there was no hope to getting something

done in Summit County,” because the Chair of the Summit County Council was not willing to

meet with him secretly while his General Plan Amendment Application was pending before the

SBPC. To do so would have been highly improper.

112. Brockbank’s interactions with Plaintiff Summit County were a subterfuge to redirect the

focus of Plaintiff Summit County away from Hideout, all the while waiting for the effective date

of HB 359S1 to allow them to surprise the public, Plaintiff Summit County, Wasatch County,

and Park City and quickly consummate the Annexation without any meaningful, open or public

process.

Annexation

113. On March 30, 2020, Baird notified Hideout to take the necessary steps to consummate the

Annexation. All negotiations, discussions, and deliberations concerning the Annexation were

done in private meetings between Brockbank, Baird, and the Hideout Town Council, culminating

28
at a July 9, 2020 meeting of the Hideout Town Council where a resolution (Resolution 2020-05)

and Pre-Annexation Agreement, which had been hastily added to the agenda without “reasonable

specificity” or public dissemination of the documents, were approved without comment or

deliberation from the Hideout Town Council.

114. Summit County filed suit against Hideout on July 31, 2020, alleging violations of the

Open and Public Meetings Act, as well as raising other legal impediments to the Annexation.

The lawsuit, styled Summit County v. Town of Hideout, Civil Case No. 200500072, Fourth

District Court, Wasatch County, State of Utah, is still pending (the “Fourth District Lawsuit”).

115. On August 4, 2020, Judge Jennifer Brown issued a Temporary Restraining Order

(“TRO”), preserving the status quo and preventing Hideout from proceeding with its annexation

pending a Preliminary Injunction Hearing.

115. On August 10, 2020, the Fourth District Court held a 12-hour evidentiary hearing and

took the matter under advisement, keeping the TRO in effect.

116. On August 12, 2020, Hideout held a public meeting (specially exempted from the TRO)

to obtain public comment on its annexation plan. The meeting experienced technical difficulties

with its online platform, Zoom, and the meeting was ultimately cancelled.

117. On August 14, 2020, the Hideout Town Council repealed Resolution 2020-05, ostensibly

because of the Zoom problems. However, in the public meeting on August 14, 2020 Hideout’s

Town Council indicated that it would be best to see what happened at the August 20, 2020

Special Session of the Utah Legislature, and whether the embattled HB 359S1 would be

repealed.

29
118. On August 20, 2020 the Utah Legislature voted to repeal HB 359S1, by passing HB

6007, with supermajority votes in both chambers.

119. In an attempt to thwart the action of the Utah Legislature in repealing HB 359S1,

Brockbank, Wells Fargo and Hideout are now racing to consummate the Annexation prior to the

statutory effective date of the repeal.

120. In furtherance of the new annexation scheme, on August 25, 2020, Hideout, who is

currently enjoined from taking further action toward annexation, filed a Notice and Request for

Status Conference in the Fourth District Lawsuit, seeking to place a new resolution of intent to

annex on their agenda even though they are currently enjoined. The first step in the annexation

process under Utah Code § 10-2-418 is the adoption of a resolution by the legislative body of the

municipality. Thereafter, a public hearing is required no earlier than thirty (30) days following

the adoption of the resolution. Judge Jennifer Brown is scheduled to announce her ruling on the

Preliminary Injunction on September 3, 2020 at 3:00 p.m.

121. The effective date of HB 6007, repealing the special purpose legislation Utah Code §10-

2-418(3), is October 19, 2020.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Declaratory Judgment; Injunctive Relief; and Abatement –
Illegal Subdivision and Failure of Consent, Parcels SS-87 and SS-88)

122. Plaintiff Summit County re-alleges and incorporates by reference each of the allegations

of Paragraphs 1 through 121 as set forth above.

123. This is a claim for declaratory and injunctive relief brought under Utah Code §78B-6-

401, Utah Code §17-27a-611(2)(b), Summit County Code §10-9-19(A), §10-9-20(B) and Rule

65A of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure.

30
124. An actual dispute exists between Plaintiff Summit County and Brockbank and Wells

Fargo.

125. Summit County has standing to enforce its ordinances, regulations and rules regarding

land use against those who would violate such. Utah Code §17-27a-611(2)(a).

126. Utah Code §17-27a-103(70) defines the “subdivision” of land to include “any land that is

divided, re-subdivided, or proposed to be divided into two or more lots or other division of land

for the purpose, whether immediate or future, for offer, sale, lease, or development either on the

installment plan or upon any and all other plans, terms, and conditions.” Said statute also

includes specific exclusions from the definition. A foreclosure sale is not one of the listed

exclusions to a “subdivision.”

127. The Foreclosure Sale of Parcels SS-87 and SS-88 held by Wells Fargo on February 22,

2020, in accordance with the Writs of Execution, constituted the subdivision of land.

112. Utah Code §17-27a-601 empowers counties to enact subdivision regulations. Summit

County Code, Title 10, the Snyderville Basin Development Code, is that subdivision regulation

which is applicable to Parcels SS-87 and SS-88.

128. In accordance with Summit County Code §10-3-1, the subdivision of land, in this case

Parcels SS-87 and SS-88, require a development permit, and more specifically a subdivision plat

(Summit County Code §§10-3-9; 10-3-14). Utah Code §17-27a-611(1)(a) states:

If a subdivision requires a plat, an owner of any land located in a subdivision who

transfers or sells any land in that subdivision before a plat of the subdivision has
been approved and recorded violates this part for each lot or parcel transferred or
sold.

129. Moreover, Summit County Code §10-9-19(c) prohibits the sale of illegally subdivided

lots or parcels.

31
130. Summit County was not on notice of the Foreclosure Sale. On information and belief,

Wells Fargo acted purposefully to conceal the Foreclosure Sale from Summit County as a part of

the Enterprise.

131. A writ of execution or its foreclosure sale and its attendant deed under Rules 64E or 69B

of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure (procedural law) do not have authority to subvert land use

law and approve the subdivision of land outside of the statutory processes set forth in Utah Code

§§17-27a-601; 611, and Summit County Code §§10-3-1; 10-3-9; 10-3-14 (substantive law). See

Brown & Root Industrial Service v. Industrial Commission of Utah, 947 P.2d 671, 675 (Utah

1997) (substantive law defines rights and duties, while procedural law sets forth the legal

machinery to make substantive law effective); Wilde v. Wilde, 969 P.2d 438, 442 (Utah App.

1998) (procedural law does not supersede substantive law). Cf. Commercial Bank of Utah v.

Madsen, 236 P.2d 343, 345 (Utah 1951) (foreclosure sale under former Rule 69E cannot be used

to sell “separate tracts of an otherwise unified parcel.”). Consequently, the Foreclosure Sale is

invalid and void, as are the Constable’s Deed and any subsequent transfers therefrom.

132. Parcels SS-87 and SS-88 have not been subdivided pursuant to state and county laws and

ordinances, and remain single, unified parcels of land owned by UPCM.

133. To the extent that Brockbank and Wells Fargo assert that the Constable’s Deed sufficed

for the required subdivision plat, such does not change the illegal nature of the subdivision.

According to Utah Code §17-27a-604(3) and (4) any plat recorded in violation of the subdivision

regulations is void and any transfer of land pursuant to such void plat is voidable by the land use

authority. Summit County is the land use authority and to the extent permitted by law hereby

voids the Constable’s Deed and any subsequent transfers therefrom.

32
134. Utah law provides that the remedy for an illegal subdivision includes “an injunction,

abatement, merger of title, or any other appropriate action or proceeding to prevent, enjoin, or

abate the violation,” which remedies Plaintiff Summit County seeks. Utah Code §17-27a-

611(2)(b); Summit County Code §10-9-19(A); §10-9-20(B). Moreover, “[a] county need only

establish the violation to obtain the injunction.” Utah Code §17-27a-611(2)(c). See Utah

County v. Baxter, 635 P.2d 61, 65 (Utah 1981) (a separate showing of irreparably harm is

unnecessary).

135. Waiver is not applicable to the enforcement of land use laws. Salt Lake County v.

Kartchner, 552 P.2d 136, 138 (Utah 1976).

136. In accordance with the Flagstaff DA, neither Brockbank, Wells Fargo, nor any other

landowner of Parcels SS-87 or SS-88, can give consent to annex any portion of Parcels SS-87 or

SS-88 into any other municipality except Park City.

137. Moreover, Plaintiff Summit County will suffer irreparable harm unless the Court enjoins

Brockbank and Wells Fargo from exercising any ownership interest in Parcels SS-87 and SS-88,

inclusive of providing consent to annex portions of Parcels SS-87 or SS-88 into Hideout pursuant

to Utah Code §10-2-418(3)(c), until those parcels are properly subdivided and an appropriate and

legal foreclosure sale has been held.

138. The threatened injury to Plaintiff Summit County outweighs whatever damage the

proposed injunction may cause to Brockbank and Wells Fargo.

139. The injunction, if issued, will not be adverse to the public interest and there is a

substantial likelihood that Plaintiff Summit County will prevail on the merits of its underlying

claim.

33
140. Consequently, the Court should declare and rule that:

A. Parcels SS-87 and SS-88 were illegally subdivided by the Foreclosure Sale and

remain unified parcels;

B. The Foreclosure Sale is abated and void, and title to Parcels SS-87 and SS-88 did

not pass to Wells Fargo or Brockbank or any subsequent transferees through the Constable’s

Deed;

C. The Constable’s Deed is abated and void, and all subsequent transfers therefrom

are void;

D. Brockbank and Wells Fargo are enjoined from recording the Constable’s Deed

and any other subsequent deed regarding Parcels SS-87 and SS-88;

E. Brockbank and Wells Fargo are enjoined from providing consent to annex any

portion of Parcels SS-87 or SS-88 into Hideout pursuant to Utah Code §10-2-418(3)(c); and

F. Brockbank and Wells Fargo are enjoined from exercising any ownership interest

in Parcels SS-87 and SS-88 until those parcels are properly subdivided and an appropriate and

legal foreclosure sale has been held.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Declaratory Judgment; Injunctive Relief; and Abatement –
Fraudulent and Invalid Real Property Deed (Constable’s Deed)
–
141. Plaintiff Summit County re-alleges and incorporates by reference each of the allegations

of Paragraphs 1 through 140 as set forth above.

142. This is a claim for declaratory and injunctive relief brought under Utah Code §78B-6-

401, Title 17 Chapters 25 and 25a of the Utah Code, and Rule 64 and 65A of the Utah Rules of

Civil Procedure.

34
143. An actual dispute exists between Plaintiff Summit County and Brockbank, Wells Fargo.

and Justin Lampropoulos.

144. Justin Lampropoulos has never been appointed by the legislative body of Summit County

or authorized to act as a constable in Summit County as required by Utah Code.

145. On information and belief, in February 2020 Justin Lampropoulos was employed by a

constable appointed in another county as a deputy constable.

146. Constables have no authority to execute or return process in counties other than the

counties where they have been appointed. Utah Code § 17-25-1.

147. Only Sheriffs of the county in which real property is located are authorized to execute

writs of execution on real property. Constables’ authority is limited to writs of execution on

personal property. Utah R. Civ. P. 64(d).

148. Judge Holmberg’s November 25, 2019 Writs of Execution did not authorize the issuance

of any deed, only a certificate of sale.

149. There is no such legal instrument as a “Constable’s Deed” for real property in Utah.

150. Consequently, the Court should declare and rule that:

A. Justin Lampropoulos has no legal authority within Summit County to execute on

real property, hold foreclosure sales, or issue real property deeds.

B. Justin Lampropoulos’ entry into Summit County without notice to the Sheriff,

purporting to act as a “Constable for the State of Utah”, and holding a Foreclosure Sale was a

violation of Utah Code § 17-25-1, 17-25-6(1), Utah R. Civ. P. 64(d), and Utah Code § 76-8-201

(Official Misconduct).

35
 B. Justin Lampropoulos’ Constable’s Deed dated February 22, 2020 has no legal

force or effect or in the alternative is void ab initio.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Summit County prays for judgment against Brockbank and

Wells Fargo on its claim for relief and all available additional relief as follows:

CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Declaratory Judgment; Injunctive Relief; and Abatement – Illegal
Subdivision, Parcels SS-87 and SS-88): For judgment in favor of Plaintiff Summit County
declaring and ordering that:

A. Parcels SS-87 and SS-88 were illegally subdivided by the Foreclosure Sale and

remain unified parcels;

B. The Foreclosure Sale is abated and void, and title to Parcels SS-87 and SS-88 did

not pass to Wells Fargo or Brockbank or any subsequent transferees through the

Constable’s Deed;

C. The Constable’s Deed is abated and void, and all subsequent transfers therefrom

are void;

D. Brockbank and Wells Fargo are enjoined from recording the Constable’s Deed

and any other subsequent deed regarding Parcels SS-87 and SS-88;

E. Brockbank and Wells Fargo are enjoined from providing consent to annex any

portion of Parcels SS-87 or SS-88 into Hideout pursuant to Utah Code §10-2-

418(3)(c); and

F. Brockbank and Wells Fargo are enjoined from exercising any ownership interest

in Parcels SS-87 and SS-88 until those parcels are properly subdivided and an

appropriate and legal foreclosure sale has been held.

36
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Declaratory Judgment; Injunctive Relief; and
Abatement – Fraudulent and Invalid Real Property Deed (Constable’s Deed): For judgment
in favor of Plaintiff Summit County declaring and ordering that:

A. Justin Lampropoulos has no legal authority within Summit County to execute on

real property, hold foreclosure sales, or issue real property deeds.

B. Justin Lampropoulos’ entry into Summit County without notice to the Sheriff and

purporting to act as a “Constable for the State of Utah” and holding a Foreclosure

Sale was a violation of Utah Code § 17-25-1, 17-25-6(1), Utah R. Civ. P. 64(d),

and Utah Code § 76-8-201 (Official Misconduct).

C. Justin Lampropoulos’ Constable’s Deed dated February 22, 2020 has no legal

force or effect or in the alternative is void ab initio.

AS TO EACH CLAIM FOR RELIEF, Plaintiff Summit County prays for reasonable

attorney’s fees, costs, and prejudgment interest as allowed by law; and such other and further

relief as this Court determines is required to do equity and justice under the circumstances.

37
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 30th day of August, 2020.

SUMMIT COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE

Margaret H. Olson
By:_______________________________________
Margaret H. Olson

David L. Thomas
By:_______________________________________
David L. Thomas

Jami R. Brackin
By: ______________________________________
Jami R. Brackin
Attorneys for Plaintiff Summit County

Plaintiff Summit County’s address:

Summit County Courthouse
60 N. Main Street
P.O. Box 128
Coalville, Utah 84017

38
EXHIBIT A

39