| United Effort Plan Trust vs. Ross Chatwin | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MOHAVE | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
PLEADINGS:
On January 29, 2004 plaintiff filed a Complaint alleging forcible entry and detainer. Initial hearing was scheduled for February 5, 2004. On February 5, 2004 Joan Dudley of Community Legal Services appeared for defendant and the parties agreed to trial on March 2, 2004. On February 17, 2004 plaintiff filed a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. The Court signed a Temporary Restraining Order and set further hearing on the date of trial. Trial to the Court occurred on March 2, 2004. At the conclusion of testimony, the Court set defendant's Motion to Compel Attendance of Witnesses for March 18, 2004. The Motion to Compel Attendance of Witnesses was denied on March 18, 2004. Both parties filed post trial briefs. On April 13, 2004 defendant filed a Motion to Strike plaintiffs post trial brief. The Court denied that motion on April 14, 2004. After closing arguments held on April 14, 2004, the Court took the matter under consideration. On April 15, 2004 Mr. Parker filed the original transcript of a portion of Mr. Chatwin's testimony. On April 16, 2004 defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss. Mr. Parker filed a response on April 26, 2004 and Ms. Dudley filed a notice to the Court the same day. On April 16, 2004 defendant filed a response to plaintiff's post trial brief and transcript references; plaintiff replied on April 26, 2004. The United Effort Plan Trust (UEP) filed this forcible entry and detainer action against Ross Chatwin alleging that Mr. Chatwin no longer had a right to possess property located at 245 N. Willow in Colorado City. Ross Chatwin defended against the complaint alleging he was not properly notified of the eviction, that there are no grounds for the eviction, and that the UEP would be unjustly enriched if he is forced to leave. This matter was tried to the Court on March 2, 2004 and after closing arguments on April 14, 2004 the Court took the matter under consideration. TRUST DOCUMENTS: Colorado City is a small community located in northwest Arizona between the Arizona-Utah border and the Colorado River. The United Effort Plan Trust controls most of the property in Colorado City, a community of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (FLDS). The history of the Colorado City, Arizona area is discussed in Jeffs v. Stubbs 970 p.2d 1234 at 1239 (Utah 1998). The 1942 Declaration of Trust for the Untied Effort Plan provided for the expulsion of a member of the trust by majority vote of the trustees. Once expelled the member ". . . shall have no further claim upon the Trust." (Exhibit B Article XII). The Trust also authorized the Board to amend the Trust by majority vote. (Exhibit B Article XIV). In 1987, after the dispute arose that led to the Jeffs decision, Rulon Jeffs, then president of the UEP sent a notice to trust property residents advising the residents that they were tenants at will. After the Utah Supreme Court tendered its decision in Jeffs the Trust documents were amended and restated. (Exhibit 4). The 1998 amendments were apparently in response to the Utah Court's ruling that the 1942 Declaration was not a religious or charitable trust. Id. At 1252. The amended Trust states "The privilege to participate in the Untied Effort Plan and live upon the lands and in the buildings of the United Effort Plan Trust is granted, and may be revoked, by the Board of Trustees . . ." It also states: "Participants who, in the opinion of the Presidency of the Church, do not honor their commitments to live their lives according to the principals of the United Effort Plan and the Church shall remove themselves from the trust property and, if they do not, the Board of Trustees may in its discretion cause their removal." (Exhibit 4 p.3) The amended and restated Declaration of Trust was mailed to the people living on Trust land including Ross Chatwin, in December of 1998. (Exhibit 4) FACTS: Ross Chatwin was born, raised and spent all 35 years of this life on UEP property. He regards himself as a faithful member of the FLDS church. Mr. Chatwin only has an eighth grade education. Although he received a copy of the 1998 Trust Declaration he did not read it. He testified at the hearing that he was taught: " . . . we were all part owner of the UEP. When I was growing up I was taught all my life that I was part owner. Even though my name was not on the documents I was still part owner, and I believed it. And I believed that the only way I'd get - - would have to be removed as if I had - had done some immoral act . . ." (TR 9). In 1987, Mr. Chatwin was given a plot of UEP land and told to build a home. (TR 46). He began construction on the home located a 425 Uzona in 1988 occupying the residence in 1992. Mr. Chatwin estimates that including materials and his labor he put more that $130,000 into the construction of his house. The estimate does not include donated labor or materials. By 2001, Mr. Chatwin, his wife Lori, and their six children outgrew the Uzona residence. So, by agreement with the UEP, he traded the Uzona residence for a larger house at 245 N. Willow. Although he occupied the basement, Mr. Chatwin was allowed to use the unfinished top floor for storage. He was give full use of the house in exchange for the Uzona residence. The Willow property totaled over 3000 square feet of useable space compared to the Uzona property which has a 1000 square foot house and a 3500 square foot shop. In June 2003, the UEP instructed Ross' brother Steven to reside in the upper floor of the Willow residence. Ross allowed his brother to occupy the top floor because he was: ". . . being obedient, thinking if I didn't I was going to get cut off from the church then and my family taken away from me." (TR 26). On January 27, 2004 UEP Board of Trustees, through their attorney, Mr. Parker, sent Mr. Chatwin a notice of eviction from the 245 North Willow property. The Board sent nothing in writing other than Mr. Parker's letter and no reasons were stated for the eviction (Exhibit 6). To show grounds for the eviction Mr. Parker presented evidence of Mr. Chatwin's activities at the Uzona residence as follows:
During the trial, however, Mr. Parker presented evidence that a young girl had obtained an order of protection against Mr. Chatwin (TR 33). The following conversation occurred during Mr. Parker's examination of Mr. Chatwin at trial (TR pp. 33-36). Q. Okay. Now with regard to the young girl who you claim wanted to be your wife. Is that your testimony, that there was a young girl who wanted to be your wife? A. There was a young lady who had lived in a very oppressive situation she felt like, and she wanted to be happy like me and my family were. Q. And her name is Jennifer Johnson; is that correct? A. Yes Q. And, Mr. Chatwin, if you look at Exhibit 19. Do you have that there? A. Yes, uh-huh. Q. This first document here is called a Petition for Order of Protection. Do you see that? A. The what now? Go ahead. Q. Petition for Order of Protection, in the upper, right-hand corner. A. Okay. Yes. Uh-huh. Q. And this is a protective order that was obtained by Jennifer's father requiring you to stay away from her; isn't that true? A. Yes. Q. And you were served with this document? A. Yes. Q. And then turning into the sixth page of the exhibit, there's another document. This one is called Injunction Against Harassment. Do you see that? A. The sixth page in? Q. Right. A. Okay. Yes, I do. Q. This page here (indicating). A. Yes. Q. Mr. Chatwin, isn't it true then that this young woman who you claim wanted to become your wife, when she turned 18 went to Moccasin and obtained a protective order in her own name to keep you away from her? A. Yes. That is very correct. But I also feel like it was - that she was coerced in doing so. That she turned to her father when the Judge asked her if she wanted to get one of these on her own and she asked her father, "What do you want me to say"? Q. But she in her own name obtained this protective order? A. Yes, she did. Earlier, much earlier than that, she asked for help. She asked us for help. Q. And its true, isn't it, that it is a fundamental violation of the principles of the Fundamentalist Church for you to court a young lady to become your wife? A. If I watched by example, then I would say something different than that, that by example it's quite the opposite in many, many cases. Q. But, nevertheless, it's true that a marriage is something that is given by the priesthood and its not something that you go out and get on your own? A. And I thought that recently - I thought that it was okay for a girl to go and suggest a husband for herself, and in many cases it would be done. Q. You gave an interview to a television show called Paula Zahn Now on January 28th. It aired on January 28th. Do you recall that? A. I don't exactly remember it. Q. It's a television show. I think its on CNN. You gave so many interviews you can't recall? A. I don't recall. There's been so much - MS DUDLEY: Objection, your Honor. THE COURT: Objection is overruled. Q. BY MR. PARKER: This is on that interview. See if it refreshes your recollection. She asks you this question: "Ross, I want to start off by reading what the leader of your church has to say about why he is throwing you out of his church. He claims you were stalking young girls to become your polygamous wives against their wishes and the wishes of their father. Is that true?" Ross Chatwin: "To some degree it may have some merit to it, but Im not going to try and defend myself on that." A. Yeah. On live television here I was extremely embarrassed and didn't felt (sic) like I could have a defense to protect myself. Q. And that was the statement you gave on television to that television show on that date; correct? A. I don't remember it, but it could be. (TR 33-36) This is the only explanations given for the eviction. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION: The Court finds that in 2001 the UEP granted Mr. Chatwin the right to occupy both floors of the Willow residence. At the time this matter was pending Mr. Chatwin had authority to use both the top and bottom floors. The preliminary injunction prohibited Mr. Chatwin from building a staircase between the two floors. The original plans for construction of the residence included a staircase connection the floors. Although the UEP, Steven Chatwin and Ross Chatwin had an informal agreement allowing Steven to use the upper floor, Mr. Chatwin still had a possessory interest in both floors at the time of the preliminary injunction. IT IS ORDERED vacating the preliminary injunction. Costs and fees are denied to both parties. MOTION TO DISMISS: In his Motion to Dismiss Mr. Chatwin raises two issues: (1) That the summary proceedings of forcible entry and detainer do not apply to this case because the parties dispute title to the property and; (2) That plaintiff failed to provide defendant with a written demand for the property. In its response the UEP argues (1) That summary disposition is appropriate because title is not at issue and the Court may not consider defendant's unjust enrichment claim and (2) that written notice by counsel on behalf of UEP satisfies the statutory requirement for demand of the property. Although the proceedings held to this point can hardly be called "summary", the Court agrees that possession not title of the property is in issue. Olds Bros. Lumber Co. v. Rushing 64 Ariz. 199, 167 P.2d 394 (1946). The defense of unjust enrichment is an equitable defense which, if proven, can result in a possessory interest. Jeffs 970 P.2d at 1246, United Effort Plan Trust v. Holm, Mohave County Case No. CV-2000-528. Furthermore, the Court finds that the letter sent by Mr. Parker, as counsel for the UEP satisfied the statutory requirement for written demand. IT IS THEREFORE, ORDERED denying the Motion to Dismiss. UNJUST ENRICHMENT: In his post-trial brief and closing arguments Mr. Chatwin claimed he was entitled to a life estate in the property because otherwise the UEP would be unjustly enriched. Unjust enrichment is a flexible equitable remedy available when a party is found to have received a benefit at the claimant's expense and it would be unjust to deny compensation. Murdock-Bryant Construction, Inc. v. Pearsen 146 Ariz. 48, 703 P.2d 1197 (Ariz. 1985). The Court looks to the facts of each case to determine whether relief is available under this theory. A finding of unjust enrichment generally means an award of compensation to claimant. In Jeffs 970 P.2d at 1247 the Utah Supreme Court, interpreting Arizona law, affirmed the trial court's order allowing the plaintiffs to live on the land for their lifetimes or be compensated by the UEP. In equity, the Court has the flexibility to create a remedy other than monetary compensation. There is no question that the UEP benefited from the work and materials used to construct the Uzona improvements. Mr. Chatwin placed the value of his efforts at over $130,000. The UEP presented no estimate of value, but the exact amount of the benefit is not relevant to this proceeding. Mr. Chatwin did not waive any rights when he moved from the Uzona residence to the Willow residence. The UEP benefited because of Mr. Chatwin's efforts and expense. The only issue, then is whether retaining the benefit would be unjust. The bulk of Mr. Chatwin's construction on the Uzona property was complete prior to the 1998 Amendment and Restatement of the Trust. When he was working on the residence and providing materials for the residence he believed he was making a permanent home for himself and his family. The 1998 amendments to the Declaration of Trust provide for the eviction of anyone based solely on the opinion of the President of the Church, but the amendments occurred after Mr. Chatwin made substantial improvements on the property. The Court finds that it is unjust to require Mr. Chatwin to forfeit his substantial investment of time and money under the circumstances of this case. The Court finds that Mr. Chatwin has proven his unjust enrichment claim. The harder question is whether Mr. Chatwin should retain possession of the property until paid restitution by the church. Ultimately there is no substantive difference between Mr. Chatwin and the Jeffs plaintiffs. The court believes equity favors Mr. Chatwin. The UEP will have a possessory right to the Willow Street residence during the life of Mr. Chatwin only upon payment of restitution for the improvements at 245 North Willow Street in Colorado City, Arizona. IT IS THEREFORE, ORDERED dismissing the Complaint in this matter. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the defense to prepare a final order for the Court's signature. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Mohave County Superior Court Originally decided May 20, 2004 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Back | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| For more information email: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||