Robert S. Treff V. GORDON B. HINCKLEY, President of The
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Brigham Young University Law School BYU Law Digital Commons Utah Supreme Court Briefs 2000 Robert S. Treff .v GORDON B. HINCKLEY, President of The hC urch of Jesus Christ of Latter- day Saints, THOMAS S. MONSON, First Counselor in the First Presidency of The hC urch of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, JAMES E. FAUST, Second Counselor in the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, DORIS WILSON, The Division of Family Services for the State of Utah, SUSAN CHANDLER, WENDY WFolloRIGHTw this and addit,ion JAMESal works at: h ttBAps://dUigitMalcommonGARDNERs.law.byu.edu/byu_s, Sc2HEILA DPOart YLof theE,Law J Cohnommon sand Jane Does #1-30, all defendants sOruediginal B indirief Submittvidualed to thely U tahin S uppreemerson Courtal; di gaitindzed b yoffic the Howialard Wc.a Hpunatecr Litawies : Library, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah; machine-generated OBCrRief, ma yof con tAainpp errorels. lee Robert S. Treff; pro se. Utah Supreme Court Randy T. Austin, Amy S. Thomas; Kirton & McConkie; attorneys for appellees. Recommended Citation Brief of Appellee, Treff .v Hinckley, No. 20000777.00 (Utah Supreme Court, 2000). https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/byu_sc2/577 This Brief of Appellee is brought to you for free and open access by BYU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Utah Supreme Court Briefs by an authorized administrator of BYU Law Digital Commons. Policies regarding these Utah briefs are available at http://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/utah_court_briefs/policies.html. Please contact the Repository Manager at [email protected] with questions or feedback. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF UTAH ROBERT S. TREFF, 2ooool~71-SC Plaintiff-Appellant, Appellate Court No. 990673 vs. GORDON B. HINCKLEY, President of Priority 15 the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, THOMAS S. MONSON, First Counselor in the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, JAMES E. FAUST, Second Counselor in the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, DORIS WILSON, DIVISION OF FAMILY SERVICES FOR THE STATE OF UTAH, SUDAN CHANDLER, WENDY WRIGHT, JAMES BAUMGARDNER, SHEILA DOYLE, JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-30, Defendants-Appelles. BRIEF OF APPELLEES GORDON B. HINCKLEY, THOMAS S. MONSON, & JAMES E. FAUST On Appeal from Decision of the Third Judicial District Court of Salt Lake County, State of Utah, Honorable Judge Young Presiding. Robert S. Treff, Pro se Randy T.Austin (#6171) Utah State Prison Amy S. Thomas (#8082) P.O Box 250 KIRTON & McCONKIE Draper, Utahg$)2l I C Q 60 East South Temple, Suite 1800 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Telephone: (801) 328-3600 MAR 1 3 2008 Attorneys for Defendants-Appellees CLERK SUPREME COURT Gordon B. Hinckley, Thomas S. Monson, and UTAH James E. Faust IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF UTAH ROBERT S. TREFF, Plaintiff-Appellant, Appellate Court No. 990673 vs. GORDON B. HINCKLEY, President of Priority 15 the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, THOMAS S. MONSON, First Counselor in the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, JAMES E. FAUST, Second Counselor in the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, DORIS WILSON, DIVISION OF FAMILY SERVICES FOR THE STATE OF UTAH, SUDAN CHANDLER, WENDY WRIGHT, JAMES BAUMGARDNER, SHEILA DOYLE, JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-30, Defendants-Appelles. BRIEF OF APPELLEES GORDON B. HINCKLEY, THOMAS S. MONSON, & JAMES E. FAUST On Appeal from Decision of the Third Judicial District Court of Salt Lake County, State of Utah, Honorable Judge Young Presiding. Robert S. Treff, Pro se Randy T. Austin (#6171) Utah State Prison Amy S. Thomas (#8082) P.O Box 250 KIRTON & McCONKIE Draper, Utah 84020 60 East South Temple, Suite 1800 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Telephone: (801) 328-3600 Attorneys for Defendants-Appellees Gordon B. Hinckley, Thomas S. Monson, and James E. Faust TABLE OF CONTENTS STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 1 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE 3 I. NATURE OF THE CASE 3 II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 4 III. STATEMENT OF FACTS ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT 5 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT 7 ARGUMENT 9 I. EACH OF TREFF' S CLAIMS AGAINST THE CHURCH DEFENDANTS FAILS AS A MATTER OF LAW 10 A. Treff s Claims for Violation of His Constitutional Rights Fail as a Matter of Law Because There Is No State Action 10 B. Treff s Tort Claim for Alienation of Affections Fails as a Matter of Law 12 C. Utah Law Does Not Recognize the Tort of Interference with Parental Rights 12 II. EVEN IF TREFF'S COMPLAINT STATED A VIABLE CAUSE OF ACTION, THE APPLICABLE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WOULD BAR ANY SUCH CLAIM 13 III. JUDGE REESE CORRECTLY DENIED BOTH OF TREFF'S MOTIONS TO DISQUALIFY BECAUSE BOTH WERE LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT 16 IV. THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT VIOLATE TREFF'S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS BY HOLDING A HEARING IN HIS ABSENCE 19 i V. COUNSEL FOR THE CHURCH DEFENDANTS DID NOT COMMIT AN ETHICAL VIOLATION IN ANSWERING TREFF'S COMPLAINT 23 VI. IF THE COURT DETERMINES THAT THE LAW RECOGNIZES TREFF'S VARIOUS CLAIMS AND THAT THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DOES NOT BAR THOSE CLAIMS, THIS COURT MUST ADDRESS SERIOUS CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES 24 CONCLUSION 25 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Affidavit of Bias, 947 P.2d 1152, 1153 (Utah 1997) 17 Alvarez v. Galetka, 933 P.2d 987 (Utah 1997) 1 Burton v. Wilmington Parking Auth., 365 U.S. 715 (1961) 11 Cf Moeck v. Zajackowski, 541 F.2d 177 (7th Cir. 1976) 21 Cf Snow v. Tanasee, 980 P.2d 208 (Utah 1999) 1,2 Dorsey v. Plummer, 1996 U.S. Dist. Lexis 18684, *3 (N.D. Cal. 1996) 20-22 Gramlich v. Munsey, 838 P.2d 1131 (Utah 1992) 2 Gray v. Department of Employment Serv., 681 P.2d 807 (Utah 1984) 10 Hill v. Duckworth, 679 N.E.2d 938 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) 22 Interwest Construction v. Palmer, 923 P.2d 1350 (Utah 1996) 13 Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345 (1974) 11 Jones v. Cyprus Plateau Min. Corp., 944 P.2d 357 (Utah 1997) 19 Jones v. Hamelman, 869 F.2d 1023 (7th Cir. 1989) 20 Larson v. Park City Municipal Corp., 955 P.2d 343 (Utah 1998) 2 Lemmons v. Morris & Morris, 39 F.3d 264 (10th Cir. 1994) 20 Madsen v. Prudential Fed. Sav. & Loan, 767 P.2d 538 (Utah 1988) 18, 19 National Collegiate Athletic Assoc, v. Tarkanian, 488 U.S. 179 (1988) 11 Nelson v. Jacobsen, 669 P.2d 1207 (1983) 12, 14 iii O'Neil v. Sckuckardt, 733 P.2d 693 (Utah 1986) 12 Poole v. Lambert, 819 F.2d 1025 (11th Cir. 1987) 20 Presbyterian Church v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Mem 7 Presbyterian Church, 393 U.S. 440 (1969) 25 Rogers v. Youngblood, 78 N.E.2d 663 (1948) 22 Seamons v. Snow, 84 F.3d 1226 (10th Cir. 1996) 10 Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948) 11 State ex rel. M.L. v. State, 965 P.2d 551 (Utah Ct. App. 1998) 2, 17 State v. Harmon, 910 P.2d 1196 (Utah 1995) 24 Stone v. Morris, 546 F.2d 730 (7th Cir. 1976) 20 Swayne v. L.D.S. Social Serv., 761 P.2d 932 (Utah Ct. App. 1998) 10 Swayne v. L.D.S. Social Serv., 795 P.2d 637 (Utah 1990) 10, 14 Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 679 (1871) 24 West v. Thomson Newspapers, 872 P.2d 999 (Utah 1994) 6 Williams v. Howard, 970 P.2d 1282 (Utah 1998) 14 STATUTES Utah Code Ann. § 78-12-25(3) 14 Utah Code Ann. § 78-12-25 14 Utah Code Ann. § 78-12-28 14 Utah R. Civ. P. 63(b)(1)(A) 17, 18 Utah Code Ann. § 78-2-2 1 iv Utah Code Ann. § 78-2-2(3)(j) 1 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS U.S. Const. Amend. XIV 10 Utah Const, art. I, § 11 21 Utah Const, art. I, § 7 10 v STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION This Court has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to § 78-2-2(3)(j), Utah Code Annotated. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Issue 1: Can Appellant Treff recover against a private entity for alleged violations of his constitutional rights where no state action was involved? Standard 1: The trial court dismissed Treff s constitutional claim based on the Church Defendants' Motion to Dismiss brought under rule 12(b)(6) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. Whether the trial court correctly dismissed a Complaint is a legal question that this Court reviews for correctness. See Alvarez v. Galetka, 933 P.2d 987 (Utah 1997). Issue 2: Does Utah law recognize the tort of interference with parental rights? Standard 2: Whether Utah law recognizes a particular cause of action is a question of law, which this Court reviews for correctness. Cf. Snow v. Tanasee, 980 P.2d 208 (Utah 1999). Issue 3: Did the trial court properly dismiss Treff s alienation of affections claim where Treff failed to allege any interference with a marital relationship? Standard 3: Whether a trial court correctly dismissed a cause of action under rule 12(b)(6) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure is a legal question, which this Court 1 reviews for correctness. See Larson v. Park City Municipal Corp,, 955 P.2d 343 (Utah 1998). Issue 4: Does a four-year statute of limitations bar all of Treff s claims where the alleged wrongful conduct occurred in 1987 but appellant did not file his Complaint until August of 1998? Standard 4: Whether the trial court correctly determined that the statute of limitations expired and barred appellant's claims is a question of law, which this Court reviews for correctness.