author: RUSSON, Associate Chief Justice.

text:
    2002 UT 6
    Paul MILLER and Kathy Miller, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY and Kenneth Riddle, Defendants and Appellees.
    No. 20000268.
    Supreme Court of Utah.
    Jan. 11, 2002.
    Rehearing Denied February 25, 2002.

      Lynn B. Larsen, Salt Lake City, for plaintiffs.
    Stuart H. Schultz, Peter R. Barlow, Salt Lake City, for defendants.
   RUSSON, Associate Chief Justice.

[ 1 Plaintiffs Paul and Kathy Miller (collectively, "the Millers") appeal the denial of their motion to either set their unresolved claims for trial or provide another forum for the resolution of those claims. Additionally, the Millers appeal the district court's refusal to confirm an appraisal award in their favor. We reverse and remand.

BACKGROUND

1 2 The Millers contracted with USAA Casualty Insurance Company ("USAA") to insure their family home located in Parowan, Utah. According to section one of the written insurance contract, USAA agreed to insure the Millers' home for physical damage. However, section one subjected property damage claims to several conditions. One such condition was an appraisal clause, that provided:

If [the Millers] and [USAA] do not agree on the amount of loss, either party can demand that the amount of the loss be determined by appraisal. If either makes a written demand for appraisal, each will select a competent, independent appraiser and notify the other of the appraiser's identity within 20 days of receipt of the written demand.
The appraisers will then set the amount of loss. If they submit a written report of any agreement to us, the amount agreed upon will be the amount of loss. If they fail to agree within a reasonable time, they will submit their differences to the umpire. Written agreement signed by any two of these three will set the amount of the loss.

T8 On or about June 14, 1996, the water heater located in the basement of the Miller family home burst, resulting in water damage to the home. The Millers then made a claim under their insurance contract with USAA to cover the cost of repairs. USAA retained Kenneth Riddle ("Riddle"), an independent adjuster, to estimate the amount of damage to the Millers' basement. Riddle, after conducting two inspections of the Mil-lerg' home, concluded that there was only minor damage to the basement. The Millers disagreed with Riddle's assessment of the extent of damage.

I 4 To resolve the dispute, the Millers filed suit against USAA on February 10, 1997 ("Miller I"), seeking recovery for physical damage to their home under the terms of the insurance contract ("contractual claim"). In addition, the Millers sought recovery on various extra-contractual grounds. Specifically, the Millers sought recovery for (1) loss of use of the home, (2) mental and emotional distress, (3) physical illness and distress, (4) frustration and embarrassment, (5) infliction of emotional distress, (6) bad faith, (7) punitive damages, and (8) other special, general, and consequential damages ("extra-contractual claims").

T5 On March 24, 1997, USAA moved to dismiss the Miller I complaint, invoking the appraisal clause and contending that the "dispute should be resolved via the appraisal process." On August 21, 1997, the Miller I district court dismissed the complaint in its entirety, relying upon the appraisal clause and stating that "the parties are bound by contract to settle the dispute in this case by appraisal."

T6 Nevertheless, the parties did not proceed to appraisal pursuant to the court's ruling because the parties could not agree about which of the Millers' claims were to be appraised. The Millers asserted that all the Miller I claims must be appraised. USAA, however, refused to agree to appraisal of any claim other than the Millers' contractual claim for physical damage to the Millers' home. USAA also refused to agree to allow the extra-contractual claims to be determined after the contractual claim was resolved by appraisal.

T7 On December 2, 1997, the Millers moved for reinstatement so that the Miller I court could resolve the parties' dispute over the seope of appraisal. The Miller I court denied this motion on January 16, 1998. Then, on January 23, 1998, the Millers moved the Miller I court to reconsider the court's denial of the motion to reinstate. Again, the court denied the motion, stating: "The suit [that] plaintiffs seek to resurrect has no claim relating to the interpretation of the appraisal clause. If there is a viable claim of that type, it may be grounds for a separate suit...."

T8 Because the Miller I court refused to address the seope of the appraisal clause and refused to specifically address the extra-contractual claims, the Millers filed a second action on February 27, 1998 ("Miller II") In their complaint initiating Miller II, the Millers named both USAA and Riddle as defendants (collectively, "USAA defendants") and sought declaratory judgment regarding the seope of the appraisal clause. In addition, the Millers asserted the following claims: (1) bad faith by USAA; (2) breach of contract and fiduciary duty by USAA; @) intentional infliction of emotional distress by both USAA defendants; and (4) breach of duty by both USAA defendants with respect to carrying out the water damage investigation.

T 9 On July 15, 1998, the USAA defendants moved to dismiss these claims based on the doctrine of res judicata, arguing that those counts were "entirely based on the same causes of action as" the Miller I extra-contractual claims. On August 10, 1998, the Millers moved for partial summary judgment on their request for declaratory judgment with respect to the scope of appraisal.

T10 On November 25, 1998, the district court granted the USAA defendants' motion to dismiss the extra-contractual claims, concluding that the August 21, 1997, order dismissing Miller I constituted a final judgment on the merits and, thus, those claims were precluded by res judicata and the appraisal agreement. The Miller II court also ruled in its November 25, 1998, order that the appraisal panel should exercise its discretion to determine the seope of appraisal. The court explained:

[TJhe ... appraisal clause [should] be construed to allow the appraisers and the umpire to consider all losses claimed by the [Millers] resulting from the 1996 water heater burst which flooded [the Millers'] home. Furthermore, the court declares that assessment of such loss shall include all damages suffered by [the Millers] from the broken water heater in the most general sense, including but not limited to actual losses, expenses, decrease in value or resources or increase in liabilities, depletion or depreciation or destruction of value, deprivation, ruin, shrinkage in value of estate or property, or any other loss stemming from the water heater burst which the appraisers and umpire, in their discretion, decide to consider.

(Last emphasis added.) Finally, the district court ordered that after the appraisers and umpire (collectively, "appraisal panel") appraised the loss, either party could appeal the appraisal panel's determination to the Miller II district court within twenty days of the panel's decision.

1 11 Despite the court's ruling, the parties again disputed which claims the appraisal panel would consider. As a result, the Millers moved to alter or amend the November 25, 1998, order, allegedly seeking clarification regarding the seope of appraisal. The district court denied that motion on January 22, 1999, stating that "it [was] premature to involve the court before the appraisers and umpire have had the opportunity to perform their duties."

1 12 Accordingly, the matter proceeded to appraisal. The parties argued to the appraisal panel their respective contentions concerning the scope of appraisal. On December 17, 1999, the appraisal panel issued a limited appraisal award. In the award, the panel addressed only the contractual claim, determining the amount of property damage to the Millers' home to be $40,880. Howeyver, exercising the discretion the district court afforded it, the panel explicitly refused to address any of the extra-contractual claims. The appraisal panel explained:

The panel as a whole is neither prepared nor willing to address extra-contractual claims (e.g., bad faith, punitive damages, emotional distress, etc.) unless specifically directed by the Court to do so. The panel as a whole is generally hesitant to embark on the laborious task of analyzing the extra-contractual claims, and feels unqualified to do so.
However, the panel agrees that the [USAA defendants] cannot avoid having [the Millers'] claims heard by one body or another. It is the intent of this panel to follow any procedure that would allow the [Millers] to preserve any properly brought claims. The panel will take any action to preserve those causes of action by decision of another tribunal.

118 After the panel issued its award, the Millers demanded that USAA pay the award before December 25, 1999. USAA promptly paid it on December 22, 1999. On December 27, 1999, the Millers filed a motion with the Miller II court to "confer on the forum and schedule for resolving" the extra-contractual claims. Then, on January 18, 2000, the Millers also moved to confirm the appraisal panel's determination.

14 On March 10, 2000, the district court denied both motions. First, the district court held that the appraisal panel's determination was final, and thus precluded the extra-contractual claims. - Accordingly, the court denied the motion to confer on the forum and schedule for resolution of those claims. The court held:

[The extra-contractual claims are] not properly before this court, as they have previously been dismissed both in Miller I and again in Miller II as final judgments on the merits. The [appraisal panel] having performed their duties and exercised their discretion, and made an award for damages found to be a loss covered under the policy, this matter is now concluded and there are no pending claims to be further considered[.]

Next, regarding the Millers' motion to confirm the appraisal panel's determination, the district court denied the motion "on the grounds that the loss awarded has been paid in full and there is no reason to affirm it and enter a judgment on the same." Thirteen days later, on March 23, 2000, the Millers filed a notice of appeal, notifying the USAA defendants of the Millers' appeal of the March 10, 2000, order.

T 15 On appeal, the Millers argue that the Miller II district court erred by denying the Millers' motion for conference, effectively foreclosing resolution of the extra-contractual claims, and by refusing to confirm the limited appraisal award. The Millers also claim they are entitled to attorney fees.

T16 In response, the USAA defendants assert that this court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal, that the Miller II district court properly denied the Millers' motion for conference, that the district court properly denied the Millers' motion to confirm the appraisal award, and that the Millers' request for attorney fees should be denied.

{17 Before we address any issues on appeal, we must first determine whether we have jurisdiction to reach the substantive issues. If we have jurisdiction, the issues on appeal for our determination are (1) whether the district court erred in dismissing the Millers' extra-contractual claims, (2) whether the district court should have confirmed the limited appraisal award, and (8) whether the Millers are entitled to attorney fees.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

118 This court is the exclusive judge of its own jurisdiction, First Nat'l Bank of Hailey, Idaho v. Lewis, 13 Utah 507, 509, 45 P. 890, 891 (1896), and its determination of whether it has jurisdiction to hear an appeal is a question of law. Pledger v. Gillespie, 1999 UT 54, ¶ 16, 982 P.2d 572. Specifically, the jurisdictional question in this case is predicated upon whether an order is final and appealable, which is a question of law. Kennecott Corp. v. Utah State Tax Comm'n, 814 P.2d 1099, 1100 (Utah 1991).

T19 In this case, whether the courts below erred in dismissing the extra-contractual claims depends on the proper interpretation of the insurance contract and whether res judicata was properly granted. A trial court's interpretation of a contract is a question of law, which we review for correct, ness, Nova Cas. Co. v. Able Constr., Inc., 1999 UT 69, ¶ 6, 983 P.2d 575. In addition, a district court's "determination of whether res judicata bars an action presents a question of law," which we review for correctness. Macris & Assocs., Inc. v. Neways, Inc., 2000 UT 93, ¶ 17, 16 P.3d 1214.

ANALYSIS

I. JURISDICTION

$20 As a threshold matter, we must determine if we have jurisdiction to hear this appeal. Thomas v. Lewis, 2001 UT 49, ¶ 13, 26 P.3d 217. If we lack jurisdiction, we must dismiss. See Bradbury v. Valencia, 2000 UT 50, ¶ 8, 5 P.3d 649 (citing A.J. Mackay Co. v. Okland Constr. Co., 817 P.2d 323, 825 (Utah 1991).

21 We have jurisdiction to hear this appeal only if the Millers filed a timely notice of appeal. Utah R.App. P. 3(a); see also Gorostieta v. Parkinson, 2000 UT 99, ¶ 19, 17 P.3d 1110; Reisbeck v. HCA Health Servs. of Utah, Inc., 2000 UT 48, ¶ 5, 2 P.3d 447. To be timely, a party must file its notice of appeal "within 30 days after the date of entry of the judgment or order appealed from." Utah R.App. P. 4(a); see also Ellis v. Swensen, 2000 UT 101, ¶ 22, 16 P.3d 1233. The USAA defendants assert that we lack jurisdiction because either (1) the Millers filed their notice of appeal more than thirty days after the final order in this case was entered, or (2) the Millers filed their notice of appeal more than thirty days after the twenty-day period to appeal the appraisal award expired.

A. Final Order of Miller II

122 We have jurisdiction over an appeal only if the notice of appeal was filed within thirty days of a final order or judgment, Utah R.App. P. 3(a), 4(a), because we "cannot consider an appeal in the absence of a final order." Ahlstrom v. Anderson, 728 P.2d 979, 979 (Utah 1986); see also Loffredo v. Holt, 2001 UT 97, ¶ 10, 37 P.3d 1070; Ellis, 2000 UT 101 at ¶ 31, 16 P.3d 1233; Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Martines, 712 P.2d 243, 244 (Utah 1985). In this case, the Millers claim that they are appealing from the March 10, 2000, order as a "final order" under Utah Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(a). However, the USAA defendants assert that the January 22, 1999, order was the final order in this case. To determine whether the Millers' notice of appeal was timely, we must decide which order constituted the final order.

A final order or judgment " 'must dispose of the case as to all the parties, and finally dispose of the subject-matter of the litigation on the merits of the case." " Bradbury, 2000 UT 50 at ¶ 9, 5 P.3d 649 (quoting Kennedy v. New Era Indus., Inc., 600 P.2d 534, 536 (Utah 1979) (emphasis omitted)). In other words, to be a final Judgment, the order "must end the controversy between the litigants." Loffredo, 2001 UT 97 at ¶ 12, 37 P.3d 1070. When claims remain pending, an order is not final. Bradbury, 2000 UT 50 at ¶ 11, 5 P.3d 649; see also Martinez, 712 P.2d at 244. Hence, a court order compelling appraisal of the parties' claims pursuant to an appraisal clause in a contract is not a final judgment and is not immediately appealable because the claims remain pending between the parties and the controversy between the litigants is perpetuated. See Wiepking v. Prudential-Bache Sec., Inc., 940 F.2d 996, 999 (6th Cir.1991); Pioneer Props., Inc. v. Martin, 776 F.2d 888, 890 (10th Cir.1985); S. Cal. Edison Co. v. Peabody W. Coal Co., 194 Ariz. 47, 977 P.2d 769, 774-75 (1999); Golden Lodge No. 13 v. Easley, 916 P.2d 666, 667 (Colo.Ct.App.1996); Gholston v. Cypress Prop. & Cas. Co., 789 So.2d 547, 548 (Fla. 3 DCA 2001) (per cu-riam); McGourty v. Pa. Millers Mut. Ins. Co., 704 A.2d 663, 665 (Pa.Super.Ct.1997); Cade v. Zions First Nat'l Bank, 956 P.2d 1073, 1080 (Utah Ct.App.1998).

124 The January 22, 1999, order was not a final judgment because it required the parties to appraise their claims. In that order, the district court specifically denied the Millers' motion to alter or amend the November 25, 1998, order in which the district court ordered the parties to proceed to appraisal. Accordingly, even after the district court issued the January 22, 1999, order, all of the Millers' claims were still pending, viable, and cognizable pursuant to that order, albeit in front of an appraisal panel. Thus, the January 22, 1999, order failed to dispose of the Millers' claims on their merits and did not end the controversy between the litigants.

125 Conversely, the March 10, 2000, order was a final order because it disposed of all the Millers' claims and effectively ended the controversy between the litigants. It was the first order that decisively eliminated the Millers' opportunity to have their extra-contractual elaims resolved. All other orders antedating the March 10, 2000, order failed to terminate the controversy between the parties because those orders either referred all of the Millers' claims to appraisal for resolution or otherwise left the extra-contractual claims outstanding and unresolved.

B. Appeal Within Twenty Days of Appraisal Award

26 In the November 25, 1998, order, the Miller II district court stated that according to Utah Code section 78-81a-15, any caleulation of loss by the appraisal panel could be appealed to the district court for modification within twenty days after the panel issued its award. On December 17, 1999, the appraisal panel issued the limited appraisal award, setting the amount of the Millers' contractual claim loss at $40,880, but declining to resolve the extra-contractual claims. The USAA defendants argue that because the Millers failed to appeal the appraisal panel's determination to the district court within twenty days after the appraisal panel issued the award, the appraisal award itself became a final judgment, requiring the Millers to file their notice of appeal within thirty days after the twenty-day appeal period expired.

127 The appraisal award, irrespective of whether the Millers appealed it to the district court, did not constitute a final judgment, and the Millers were under no duty to appeal from that award to this court. Because the appraisal panel declined to address the extra-contractual claims, those claims remained unresolved, and thus, the appraisal panel's determination did not "end the controversy between the litigants." Loffredo, 2001 UT 97 at ¶ 12, 37 P.3d 1070.

128 Nevertheless, the Millers timely appealed the limited appraisal award by filing the motion for conference. Specifically, the Millers moved to "confer on the forum and schedule for resolving" their extra-contractual claims. This motion was tantamount to an appeal of the panel's refusal to resolve the extra-contractual claims. The Millers' requested remedy-a forum for resolution of the extra-contractual claims-is indistinguishable from the remedy the Millers would have sought by a formal appeal to the district court. The Millers had no need to appeal the panel's determination of the amount of the contractual claim loss. Indeed, the Millers moved the court to confirm that award. To the extent that the USAA defendants argue that the Millers should have filed a formal appeal rather than a motion for conference, they ask us to elevate and exalt form over substance, which we refuse to do. See Buzas Baseball, Inc. v. Salt Lake Trappers, Inc., 925 P.2d 941, 947 (Utah 1996).

{29 The Millers' motion for conference was filed just four days after the appraisal panel issued its limited appraisal award, well within the twenty-day period allotted for appeal to the district court. The district court denied that motion on March 10, 2000. Because the March 10, 2000, order completely disposed of all the Millers' claims and appeals to the district court, we conclude that it was the Miller II final order.

130 Because we conclude that the March 10, 2000, order was the final order in Miller II, rule 4(a) of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure required the Millers to file their notice of appeal within thirty days of March 10, 2000, to properly initiate this appeal. The Millers filed their notice of appeal on March 23, 2000, rendering the notice timely and establishing our jurisdiction to hear this appeal.

II. APPRAISAL AND ARBITRATION

1 31 Both parties have cited the Utah Arbitration Act (the "Act"), Utah Code Ann. §§ 78-31la-1 to -20, on which the courts below relied in making their rulings, in support of their respective arguments concerning the appraisal clause. Specifically, both parties present their arguments to this court as if the appraisal clause is tantamount to an arbitration clause. Accordingly, before we address the merits of the issues on appeal, we must determine whether an appraisal clause is essentially an arbitration clause to which the Act applies.

A. Arbitration

132 Arbitration is "[a] method of dispute resolution involving one or more neutral third parties ... whose decision is binding." Black's Low Dictionary 100 (7th ed.1999); see also Reed v. Davis County Sch. Dist., 892 P.2d 1063, 1065 (Utah Ct.App. 1995); 6 C.J.S. Arbitration § 1 (1975). Specifically, an arbitration is a broad, "quasi-judicial proceeding, complete with formal hearings, notice to parties, and testimony of witnesses." - Hartford Lloyd's Ins. Co. v. Teachworth, 898 F.2d 1058, 1062 (5th Civ.1990). In Utah, arbitration is governed by the Act, which delineates the rights of the parties in arbitration and sets forth the procedure for the courts and the arbitrators to follow. Utah Code Ann. §§ 78-Sla-1 to -20 (1996).

133 Under the Act, parties can agree to arbitrate any controversy. Id. § 78-81la-8. - Consequently, if a "party show[s] the existence of an arbitration agreement," then the court "shall order the parties to arbitrate." Id. § 78-Bla-4(1). However, a court may only compel arbitration of issues that are within the "scope of the matters covered by the agreement." Id. The arbitration agreement defines the seope of the controversy to be arbitrated. Pac. Dev., L.C. v. Orton, 2001 UT 36, ¶ 13, 23 P.3d 1035.

134 Onee a court compels arbitration, the court must stay the action or proceeding involving the issue or issues subject to arbitration. Utah Code Ann. § 78-8la4@8) (1996). According to the order compelling arbitration, an arbitration hearing is then held. Id. § 78-3la-7. At that hearing, each party may present evidence and examine witnesses. Id. Evaluating the evidence, arbitrators then make an award resolving the issues presented to them. Id. § 78-81la-10. The arbitration award is binding and enforceable in court. Id. § 78-8la-12; see also Reed, 892 P.2d at 1065.

B. Appraisal

185 Although appraisal may be used as another form of alternative dispute resolution, it is not arbitration. Appraisal, in a general sense, is defined as the "determination of what constitutes a fair price; valuation; estimation of worth." Black's Low Dictionary 97 (Tth ed.1999). An appraisal is an informal, independent investigation conducted by individuals who "base their decisions on their own knowledge." Teachworth, 898 F.2d at 1062. An appraisal is conducted "without hearing or judicial inquiry." 6 C.J.S. Arbitration § 8 (1975). In addition, unlike arbitration, "appraisal ordinarily settles only a subsidiary or incidental matter rather than the main controversy as does an arbitration award." Id.; see also St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Wright, 97 Nev. 308, 629 P.2d 1202, 1203 (1981) ("An appraiser's power generally does not 'encompass the disposition of the entire controversy between the parties ... [but] extends merely to the resolution of the specific issues of actual cash value and the amount of loss." " (quoting In re Delmar Box Co., 309 N.Y. 60, 127 N.E.2d 808, 811 (1955))).

$36 Further, unlike an arbitration award, an appraisal determination is not nee-essarily binding and enforceable in court. The appraisal determination is either evidence to be considered by the trial court or an award to be enforced, depending upon the contract terms.

137 Because of the intrinsic differences between arbitration and appraisal, we conclude that neither the Act nor our case law addressing arbitration agreements directly applies to appraisal.

III. DUE PROCESS AND OPEN COURTS

138 The paramount issue in this appeal is whether the district court erred by dismissing the extra-contractual claims. Parties to a suit, subject to all valid claims and defenses, are constitutionally entitled to litigate any Jjusticiable controversy between them, i.e., they are entitled to their day in court. Both the due process clause of article I, section 7 and the open courts provision of article I, section 11 of the Utah Constitution guarantee that litigants will have this "day in court." Jenkins v. Percival, 962 P.2d 796, 799 (Utah 1998) ("Even the most limited reading of [the open courts] provision guarantees a day in court to all parties ... in disputed insurance claims."); Berry v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 717 P.2d 670, 675 (Utah 1985) ("The clear language of the [open courts provision] guarantees access to the courts and a judicial procedure that is based on fairness and equality." (emphasis added)); Celebrity Club, Inc. v. Utah Liquor Control Comm'n, 657 P.2d 1293, 1296 (Utah 1982) (holding that due process clause dictates that claimants have day in court). Article I, seetion 7 provides:

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.

Utah Const. art. I, § 7. Further, article I, section 11 provides:

All courts shall be open, and every person, for an injury done to him in his person, property or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law, which shall be administered without denial or unnecessary delay; and no person shall be barred from prosecuting or defending before any tribunal in this State, by himself or counsel, any civil cause to which he is a party.

Id. § 11. This constitutional right to a day in court is the "right and opportunity, in a judicial tribunal, to litigate a claim, seek relief, or defend one's rights." Black's Low Dictionary 402 (ith ed.1999). The analysis to determine whether the Millers were denied their day in court is the same under both the open courts provision and the due process clause. However, the due process clause is applicable to the case at bar only if the Millers were deprived of either life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Therefore, we first address whether the Millers were deprived of either life, liberty, or property, and then determine whether the district court afforded the Millers an opportunity to litigate their claims.

A. Property Interest

139 We have previously held that under the due process clause, individuals cannot be deprived of their right to pursue legal claims-such as the extra-contractual claims here, which are a form of property-without due process of law. In McGrew v. Industrial Commission, we stated:

"The words 'life, 'Wberty," and 'property' are constitutional terms, and are to be taken in their broadest sense. They indicate the three great subdivisions of all civil right. The term 'property,' in this clause, embraces all valuable interests which a man may possess outside of himself; that is to say, outside of his life and liberty. It is not confined to mere tangible property but extends to every species of vested right."

96 Utah 203, 208, 85 P.2d 608, 610 (1938) (last emphasis added) (quoting Campbell v. Holt, 115 U.S. 620, 631, 6 S.Ct. 209, 29 L.Ed. 483 (1885) (Bradley, J., dissenting)).

140 Causes of action or claims that have accrued under existing law are vested property rights just as tangible things are property. See Payne v. Myers, 743 P.2d 186, 190 (Utah 1987) ("'This [clourt has held that a vested right of action is a property right protected by the due process clause."); Spanish Fork W. Field Irrigation Co. v. Dist. Court, 99 Utah 527, 544, 104 P.2d 353, 360 (1940) (stating that a " 'vested right of action is property in the same sense [that] tangible things are property' " (citation omitted)); Buttrey v. Guaranteed Sec. Co., 78 Utah 39, 51, 300 P. 1040, 1045 (1931) (holding that cause of action under blue sky law was "in the nature of a property right"); Halling v. Indus. Comm'n, 71 Utah 112, 122, 263 P. 78, 81 (1927) (indicating that denial of vested right of action would violate due process clause). Here, the Millers' extra-contractual claims, and their resulting vested property interest in those claims, accrued when the USAA defendants allegedly injured the Millers. Payne, 743 P.2d at 190. Thus, the extra-contractual claims are vested rights of action that are "property right[s] protected by the due process clause." Id.

B. Day in Court

%41 The open courts provision guarantees, at the very least, "that courts shall be open{, affording] a day in court to all parties." Jenkins, 962 P.2d at 799. Similarly, the due process clause, at the very least, requires that every claimant "be afforded his 'day in court.! " Celebrity Club, 657 P.2d at 1296; see also Christiansen v. Harris, 109 Utah 1, 6-8, 163 P.2d 314, 316-17 (1945). When ensuring litigants have received due process of law, our policy is to " 'resolve doubts in favor of permitting parties to have their day in court on the merits of a controversy' " Celebrity Club, 657 P.2d at 1296 (quoting Carman v. Slavens, 546 P.2d 601, 603 (Utah 1976)).

142 At a minimum, a day in court means that each party shall be afforded the opportunity to present claims and defenses, and have them properly adjudicated on the merits according to the facts and the law. Accordingly, we must determine whether the Millers ever received the opportunity to litigate the extra-contractual claims, ie., whether the district court afforded the Millers their day in court on the merits of the extra-contractual claims.

143 After the appraisal panel issued its determination, in which the panel specifically declined to resolve the extra-contractual claims, the Millers moved the Miller II district court to "confer on the forum and schedule for resolving" the extra-contractual claims. On March 10, 2000, the Miller II district court denied that motion, reasoning that the extra-contractual claims were not properly before the court because "they hald] previously been dismissed both in Miller I and again in Miller II as final judgments on the merits."

"[ 44 Nevertheless, the Millers contend that the district court erred in denying the Millers' motion for conference and in refusing to provide a forum for the resolution of the extra-contractual claims. Inasmuch as the district court's denial of the motion for conference was predicated upon the dismissals of Miller I and Miller II, our determination of whether the Millers were denied their day in court hinges on whether the Miller I and Miller II district courts deprived the Millers of their day in court on the extra-contractual claims when they dismissed those claims in the August 21, 1997, and November 25, 1998, orders, respectively.

1. - Miller I Order of Dismissal

145 Although the Miller II district court relied upon the dismissals of both Miller I and Miller II when it denied the motion for conference, we first concern ourselves with the dismissal of Miller I. The Miller II district court dismissed the Millers' extra-contractual claims on the basis that the doctrine of res judicata barred prosecution of those claims because they were the same claims that the Miller I district court had already dismissed. Accordingly, we first analyze whether the Miller I district court properly dismissed the extra-contractual claims in the August 21, 1997, order.

T 46 On March 21, 1997, USAA moved the district court in Miller I to dismiss the Millers' complaint in its entirety because, as it argued to the district court, "[the dispute should be resolved via the appraisal process." In the August 21, 1997, order, the Miller I district court dismissed all of the Millers claims, including the - extra-contractual claims, because USAA invoked the appraisal clause of the insurance contract. The district court reasoned that the "parties [were] bound by contract to settle the dispute in this case by appraisal."

147 Appraisal clauses, like other contractual clauses requiring alternative dispute resolution, are strictly enforceable. See Utah State Bar v. Summerhayes & Hayden, 905 P.2d 867, 868 (Utah 1995); see also Ice City, Inc. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 456 Pa. 210, 314 A.2d 236, 240 (1974) (stating that appraisal clauses are enforceable); Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Fraiman, 514 S.W.2d 343, 345 (Tex.Civ.App.1974) (same). Therefore, a court must compel compliance with a valid appraisal clause if one party demands appraisal. Lundy v. Farmers Group, Inc., 322 Ill.App.3d 214, 255 IIl.Dec. 733, 750 N.E.2d 314, 318 (2001) (holding that court may compel compliance with appraisal clause); Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Ins. Comm'r, 298 Md. 409, 445 A.2d 14, 19 (1982) (same).

148 Nevertheless, a litigant's constitutional right to its day in court constrains a court to compel appraisal of a dispute only if the parties expressly and unequivocally agreed to resolve the particular disputed issue by appraisal, thereby waiving their constitutional right to judicial resolution of the dispute. See Jenkins, 962 P.2d at 799; see also Cade v. Zions First Nat'l Bank, 956 P.2d 1073, 1077 (Utah Ct.App.1998) (noting that party who has not agreed to arbitrate dispute has right to court's decision on merits). Generally, to decide whether a party clearly agreed to appraisal of a particular issue, a court must review the appraisal clause of the underlying insurance contract, see Summerhayes & Hayden, 905 P.2d at 868, determine the scope of that clause, and compel appraisal accordingly, Lundy, 255 Ill.Dec. 733, 750 N.E.2d at 318 (maintaining that court must determine whether appraisal clause exists and whether particular dispute is covered by clause); Riley v. Farmers Fire Ins. Co., 1999 Pa.Super. 179, 735 A.2d 124, 128 (1999) (stating that "insurance policy's appraisal provision provides the scope of authority for the appraisers in fashioning the appraisal award."). We therefore turn to the appraisal clause of the insurance contract itself to decide whether the extra-contractual claims were amenable to appraisal.

149 "An insurance policy is a contract between the insurer and the insured and, accordingly, is subject to the general rules of contract construction." S.W. Energy Corp. v. Cont'l Ins. Co., 1999 UT 28, ¶ 12, 974 P.2d 1239. Specifically, "unless the language of an insurance contract is ambiguous or unclear, the court must construe it according to its plain and ordinary meaning." First Am. Title Ins. Co. v. J.B. Ranch, Inc., 966 P.2d 834, 836 (Utah 1998). "Whether an insurance policy is ambiguous is a question of law." S.W. Energy, 1999 UT 23 at ¶ 14, 974 P.2d 1239. An insurance "policy is ambiguous only if it is not 'plain to a person of ordinary intelligence and understanding.! " First Am. Title Ins. Co., 966 P.2d at 836 (quoting Nielsen v. O'Reilly, 848 P.2d 664, 666 (Utah 1992)). As we review the appraisal clause agreed to by the parties, moreover, we must "interpret words ... according to their usually accepted meanings and in light of the insurance policy as a whole." Utah Farm Bureau Ins. Co. v. Crook, 1999 UT 47, ¶ 5, 980 P.2d 685.

T50 In section one of the insurance contract, USAA agreed to insure the Millers' home against property damage. As a condition precedent to recovery for property damage, the insurance contract requires the parties to submit the amount of loss to appraisal if a dispute arises as to the amount of loss. The appraisal clause states:

If [the Millers] and [USAA] do not agree on the amount of loss, either party can demand that the amount of the loss be determined by appraisal....
The appraisers will ... set the amount of loss. If they submit a written report of any agreement to us, the amount agreed upon will be the amount of loss. If they fail to agree within a reasonable time, they will submit their differences to the umpire. Written agreement signed by any two of these three will set the amount of the loss.

(Emphasis added.) The appraisal clause in this contract, especially in light of the contract as a whole, is plain and unambiguous.

51 According to the plain language of the appraisal clause, the appraisers were only to set the "amount of loss" of the property damage to the home. Inasmuch as the appraisal clause is a condition only in section one of the insurance contract, the clause necessarily applies only to property damage claims.

152 Further, relying on the usually accepted meaning of the term, amount of loss as used in the appraisal clause refers to the value of the injury or damage for which the Millers may seek indemnity. Massey v. Farmers Ins. Group, 837 P.2d 880, 882 (Okla.1992) ("[AJppraisal provisions permit appraisers or umpires to determine one issue, to wit, the amount of damage to the property."); 46A C.J.S. Insurance § 1355 (1998) ("[Slub-missions to ascertain the 'amount of loss or damage' are to be construed to signify a proceeding to appraise and estimate the damage to the property described, but not to embrace the question of ownership or any other matter [that] goes to the root of the cause of action."). "The word loss' in a clause in an indemnity insurance policy ... means the injury or damage caused by the accident for which the insurer may, under the provisions of the policy, be liable. ..." 44 Am.Jur.2d Insurance § 1327 (1982).

T53 The only claim the Millers alleged in Miller I regarding the amount of damage or loss caused by the water heater's bursting was the contractual claim for property damage. None of the extra-contractual claims pertain to the amount of loss under the insurance contract. Because the clause is limited to appraisal of the amount of loss, only the contractual claim was covered by the clause. See Rastelli Bros. v. Netherlands Ins. Co., 68 F.Supp.2d 440, 442-43 (D.N.J. 1999) ("The appraisal clause ... deals exelu-sively with the method of handling a dispute about 'the amount of loss." "); J. Wise Smith & Assocs. v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 925 F.Supp. 528, 529 (W.D.Tenn.1995) (concluding that appraisal of amount of loss was appropriate where parties agreed to resolve amount of loss by appraisal); Atencio v. U.S. Sec. Ins. Co., 676 So.2d 489, 490 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1996) (ruling that lower court erred in granting order to compel appraisal because dispute was not concerning "amount of loss"); Lundy, 255 Ill.Dec. 733, 750 N.E.2d at 319 ("Here, the appraisal process provided for in the policy was designed solely to resolve disputes over the amount of loss."); Guider v. LCI Communications Holdings Co., 87 Ohio App.3d 412, 622 N.E.2d 415, 419 (1993) ("[Aln appraisal determines only the amount of loss, without resolving issues such as whether the insurer is Hable under the policy."); Riley, 735 A.2d at 127 (" '[AJppraisal is limited to determining the amount of loss with all other issues reserved for settlement by either negotiation or litigation.' " (quoting Ice City, Inc. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 456 Pa. 210, 314 A.2d 236, 240 n. 12 (1974))). Therefore, the Miller I district court should have compelled only appraisal of the contractual claim and erred by dismissing the extra-contractual claims under the appraisal clause.

154 Because the Miller I district court improperly dismissed the extra-contractual claims, the district court never resolved those claims on their merits. The due process clause and the open courts provision mandate that the Millers have an opportunity to litigate the merits of all controversies between them and the USAA defendants. The district court unconstitutionally denied the Millers any opportunity to have their day in court on the extra-contractual claims by improperly dismissing those claims and ordering their appraisal when the Millers had not agreed to their appraisal.

2. Miller II Order of Dismissal

[ 55 We next turn our attention to whether the Miller II district court deprived the Millers of the opportunity to have their day in court on the extra-contractual claims. Whether the Miller II court denied the Millers the opportunity to have their day in court depends on whether that court properly dismissed their claims.

a. - Claim Preclusion

156 On July 15, 1998, the USAA defendants moved to dismiss the extra-contractual claims alleged in Miller II on claim preclusion grounds. The Miller II district court accepted this argument, and thus, dismissed the extra-contractual claims, ruling that the doctrine of res judicata precluded those claims. Specifically, the district court reasoned:

The doctrine of res judicata is clearly applicable to [the Millers' extra-contractual claims brought here and] are effectively the same as [the Miller I extra-contractual claims]. Dismissal in that ease constituted a final judgement on the merits. As such, the parties may not again raise those issues in this law suit. ...

Whether the Miller II district court unconstitutionally denied the Millers the opportunity to have their day in court on the extra-contractual claims depends on whether the district court properly dismissed those claims on res judicata grounds.

157 "The doctrine of res judicata serves the important policy of preventing previously litigated issues from being relit-igated." Salt Lake City v. Silver Fork Pipeline Corp., 913 P.2d 731, 733 (Utah 1995). Res judicata encompasses two distinct doctrines: claim preclusion and issue preclusion. Macris & Assocs., Inc. v. Neways, Inc., 2000 UT 93, ¶ 19, 16 P.3d 1214. In this case, the Miller II court dismissed based on the doe-trine of claim preclusion.

158 Generally, "claim preclusion bars a party from prosecuting in a subsequent action a claim that has been fully litigated previously." Culbertson v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 2001 UT 108, ¶ 13, 44 P.3d 642; see also Macris & Assocs., 2000 UT 93 at ¶ 19, 16 P.3d 1214. The party moving a court to dismiss on claim preclusion grounds bears the burden of establishing three elements, Macris & Assocs., 2000 UT 93 at ¶ 20, 16 P.3d 1214 which are:

"First, both cases must involve the same parties or their privies. Second, the claim that is alleged to be barred must have been presented in the first suit or must be one that could and should have been raised in the first action. Third, the first suit must have resulted in a final judgment on the merits."

Id. (emphasis added) (quoting Madsen v. Borthick, 769 P.2d 245, 247 (Utah 1988)); see also Culbertson, 2001 UT 108 at ¶ 13, 44 P.3d 642. All three elements must be established for claim preclusion to apply. See Madsen, 769 P.2d at 247.

T 59 According to the third element, "[aln adjudication upon the merits is ... required [to establish] claim preclusion." - Beaver County v. Qwest, Inc., 2001 UT 81, ¶ 20, 31 P.3d 1147. We find this element to be dis-positive as to the applicability of res judicata in this case. The Miller II district court, applying the doctrine of res judicata, dismissed the extra-contractual claims because those same claims had been dismissed in the August 21, 1997, order of Miller I as a "final judgment on the merits." However, we conclude that the trial court erred in ruling that res judicata barred the extra-contractual claims for the ensuing reasons.

160 First, the August 21, 1997, order was not final. Unless an order or judgment disposes of all the parties and all the claims on the merits, that order is not a final order or judgment because claims are left pending. Bradbury v. Valencia, 2000 UT 50, ¶¶ 9 & 11, 5 P.3d 649; Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Martinez, 712 P.2d 243, 244 (Utah 1985). Furthermore, as we stated above, an order compelling appraisal is not a final judgment. Although the August 21, 1997, order dismissed all of the Millers claims, - including - the - extra-contractual claims, it was not a final order because it merely ordered that all of the Millers' claims be submitted to appraisal. The order left the claims pending, viable, and outstanding.

T61 Next, the August 21, 1997, order was not "[aln adjudication upon the merits." - Beaver County, 2001 UT 81 at ¶ 20, 31 P.3d 1147. Rule 41(b) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure "comprehensively define[s] a dismissal on the merits." Madsen, 769 P.2d at 248; see also Beaver County, 2001 UT 81 at ¶¶ 19-20, 31 P.3d 1147. Rule 41(b) provides in pertinent part:

[A] dismissal ..., other than a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction or for improper venue or for lack of an indispensable party, operates as an adjudication upon the merits.

Utah R. Civ. P. 41(b) (emphasis added). Accordingly, we have held that under rule 41(b), "a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction does not result in an adjudication on the merits." Beaver County, 2001 UT 81 at ¶ 19, 31 P.3d 1147.

{62 In its August 21, 1997, order, the Miller I district court never addressed the merits of the allegations in the complaint, but simply dismissed the Millers' claims because "the parties [were] bound by contract to settle the dispute in this case by appraisal." The district court dismissed Miller I on the assumption that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the Millers' claims, i.e., on the assumption that the insurance contract vested the appraisal panel with jurisdiction to hear the claims and that the contract reciprocally divested the district court of jurisdiction until the completion of the appraisal process. Accordingly, because the district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, we conclude that the extra-contractual claims were never dismissed "on the merits." See, e.g., Beaver County, 2001 UT 81 at ¶ 19, 34 P.3d 1147.

163 Therefore, the USAA defendants never established the third element of claim preclusion. Inasmuch as the USAA defendants never established claim preclusion, the Miller II district court should not have dismissed the extra-contractual claims and, in doing so, denied the Millers the opportunity to have their day in court on the merits of those claims.

b. Court's Duty to Determine Scope of Appraisal Clause

164 The district court declined to address the scope of the appraisal clause, vesting the appraisal panel with authority to determine the scope of the clause in its discretion. The determination of the seope of the appraisal clause is a question of law for determination by the district court because it is a matter of contract interpretation. See Pac. Dev., L.C. v. Orton, 2001 UT 36, ¶ 13, 23 P.3d 1035; see also Caldwell v. Ford, Bacon & Davis Utah, Inc., 777 P.2d 483, 486 (Utah 1989). The district court erred in devolving the determination of the seope of appraisal to the panel. In doing so, the district court improperly abdicated its duty to interpret the appraisal clause and determine the scope of appraisal. See Portland Gen. Elec. Co. v. U.S. Bank Trust Nat'l Assoc., 218 F.3d 1085, 1090 (9th Cir.2000); Lundy v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 322 Ill.App.3d 214, 255 Ill.Dec. 733, 750 N.E.2d 314, 318 (2001).

3. - Opportunity to Litigate

$65 Finally, the Miller II district court unconstitutionally denied the Millers the opportunity to have their day in court when it denied the Millers' motion for conference. After the appraisal panel appropriately declined to resolve the extra-contractual claims, the Millers requested the Miller II court to either set the extra-contractual claims for trial or provide them another forum for the resolution of those claims. On March 10, 2000, the Miller II court denied the motion, stating that both the Miller I and Miller II courts had already dismissed those claims. Because we have held herein that both the Miller I and Miller II courts improperly dismissed the extra-contractual claims and should have adjudicated those claims on the merits, we must now also conclude that the district court erred in relying on those decisions to determine that it would not address the extra-contractual elaims. Therefore, the Millers were never afforded an opportunity to have their day in court on the extra-contractual claims, and those claims have never been adjudicated on the merits.

166 Because we conclude that the district court unconstitutionally denied the Millers the opportunity to have their day in court on the merits of the extra-contractual claims, we reverse the district court's dismissal and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

IV. CONFIRMATION OF APPRAISAL AWARD

167 The next issue on appeal is whether the Miller II district court erred in refusing to confirm the appraisal award on the contractual claim. The Millers contend that section 78-81a-12 of the Utah Arbitration Act required the district court to confirm the appraisal award. That section reads:

Upon motion to the court by any party to the arbitration proceeding for the confirmation of the award, and 20 days notice to all parties, the court shall confirm the award unless a motion is timely filed to vacate or modify the award.

Utah Code Ann. § 78-8la-12 (1996); see also Buzas Baseball, Inc. v. Salt Lake Trappers, Inc., 925 P.2d 941, 951 (Utah 1996) (observing that arbitration " 'award [must] be confirmed by a court unless it is vacated, modified, or corrected' " (quoting 4 Am.Jur.2d Alternative - Dispute - Resolution § 229 (1995))).

168 However, in light of our reversal of the March 10, 2000, order, there is no longer a final order in this case. We generally decline to address piecemeal appeals in the same litigation. Loffredo v. Holt, 2001 UT 97, ¶ 11, 37 P.3d 1070. Therefore, we decline to address this issue. Instead, this issue is remanded to the district court, and the district court must determine whether it will confirm the appraisal panel's determination and enter judgment thereon.

V. ATTORNEY FEES

T 69 In light of our reversal of the issues on appeal, we remand to the district court to determine if the Millers are entitled to attorney fees. Under Utah law, attorney fees are generally not recoverable "unless authorized by statute or contract." Faust v. KAI Techs,, Inc., 2000 UT 82, ¶ 17, 15 P.3d 1266. The only basis the Millers have proffered to support their attorney fee entitlement is section 78-31a-16 of the Utah Arbitration Act. However, as held above, the Utah Arbitration Act does not directly apply to appraisals. See supra 1135-37. Therefore, on remand the district court must determine if the Millers are entitled to attorney fees.

CONCLUSION

T 70 We conclude that we have jurisdiction to hear this appeal because the Millers filed a timely notice of appeal. Additionally, we conclude that the district court denied the Millers the opportunity to have their constitutional right to their day in court with respect to the extra-contractual claims. Therefore, we reverse the March 10, 2000, order and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. We also remand to the district court to determine whether the Millers are entitled to attorney fees.

T71 Justice DURHAM, Justice DUR-RANT, Justice WILKINS, and Judge BILLINGS concur in Associate Chief Justice RUSSON'S opinion.

T 72 Having disqualified himself, Chief Justice HOWE does not participate herein; Court of Appeals Judge JUDITH M. BILLINGS sat.

      . The Millers alleged that physical illnesses were occasioned by molds and other pathogenic organisms thriving in the Millers' basement as a result of the water.

      . This is not a case of a plaintiff seeking two bites of the apple. Instead, this is one continuous case, although two complaints were filed and two judges presided.

      . Although these claims are not exactly identical to the Miller I extra-contractual claims, we also refer to these claims as the extra-contractual claims for convenience because they are substantially similar to the Miller I extra-contractual claims and our analysis is unaffected by referring to them as such.

      . USAA paid the appraisal panel's award before final judgment was ever entered in the case. Neither party argued that the parties signed a release in connection with USAA's payment. That payment was made prematurely of USAA's own volition, and USAA was not required to make the payment when it did.

      . We have previously held that the plain meaning of section 78-31a-19(1) of the Utah Arbitration Act provides that a party may appeal an order denying a motion to compel arbitration, regardless of whether the order is a final judgment. Pledger v. Gillespie, 1999 UT 54, ¶ 17, 982 P.2d 572. Our holding in Pledger does not violate the final judgment rule because "orders and judgments that are not final can be appealed if such appeals are statutorily permissible." Bradbury, 2000 UT 50 at ¶ 12, 5 P.3d 649. However, an order compelling appraisal is not appealable before a final judgment is entered because the statute is explicitly limited to denial of motions to compel arbitration. Utah Code Ann. § 78-31a-4(1) (1996).

      . "On the merits" is a term of art that means that a judgment is rendered only after a court has evaluated the relevant evidence and the parties' substantive arguments. Black's Law Dictionary 1117 (7th ed.1999). To be on the merits, a judgment does not have to proceed to trial. Rather, a judgment on the merits may be made at any stage of the litigation, so long as the district court rendered judgment based upon a proper application of the relevant law to the facts of the case.

      . Before the Miller I court, USAA contended that the entire complaint should be dismissed because [tlhe dispute" should be appraised. However, when the parties attempted to define the scope of the appraisal, USAA contended that only the contractual claim regarding the amount of loss should be appraised. USAA has never attempted to reconcile its intrinsically contradictory arguments. USAA cannot argue to the district court on the one hand that all the claims are to be appraised to achieve the end of dismissal, while on the other hand, after procuring the court-ordered dismissal, claim that only the contractual claim is to be appraised. We are unwilling to allow USAA to circumvent the legal process by arguing positions diametrically opposed to one another when advancing both positions is simply self-serving.

      . Contrary to our holding in 450-54, supra, by dismissing all of the Millers' claims pursuant to the appraisal clause, the Miller I district court tacitly manifested the intention that all of the Millers' claims were to be appraised.

      . The USAA defendants argue in their brief that because "the Millers presented all of their claims to the appraisal panel, re-litigation of the claims would be barred" by res judicata. We recognize that an unconfirmed appraisal award can bar a subsequent suit. Here, however, the appraisal panel, exercising the discretion afforded it by the Miller II court, specifically declined to address those claims. In doing so, the panel stated that it believed the district court was better suited to resolve those claims. Although the claims may have been presented to the panel, the panel never rendered a judgment or an award on them. Without a judgment, res judicata does not apply. See Macris & Assocs., 2000 UT 93 at ¶ 19, 16 P.3d 1214. Moreover, the district court never should have dismissed them in the first place, and if the court had not dismissed, they would be pending before the district court on the merits. We refuse to hold that when the district court erroneously dismissed those claims and they were erroneously presented to the appraisal panel, they were forever barred by the doctrine of res judicata.

      . Although we remand for the district court to afford the Millers the opportunity to present their claims, we do not take any position on the validity or resolution of those claims.


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    2002 UT 8
    STATE of Utah, By and Through DIVISION OF FORESTRY, FIRE & STATE LANDS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. TOOELE COUNTY, Utah; Six Mile Ranch Company; Craig S. Bleazard; Mark C. Bleazard; and John C. Bleazard, Defendants and Appellees.
    No. 20000493.
    Supreme Court of Utah.
    Jan. 18, 2002.
    Rehearing Denied March 12, 2002.

      Mark L. Shurtleff, Att'y Gen., Annina M. Mitchell, Asst. Att'y Gen., Salt Lake City, for plaintiff.
    Douglas J. Ahlstrom, Tooele, and George S. Young, Brent A. Bohman, Salt Lake City, for defendants.
   RUSSON, Associate Chief Justice.

T1 The State of Utah, by and through its Division of Forestry, Fire, and State Lands, appeals from a summary judgment order upholding Tooele County's vacation of its interests in a portion of West Stansbury Road near the Great Salt Lake. We reverse and remand.

BACKGROUND

2 In March 1993, following repeated vandalism to their respective properties on Stansbury Island, landowners Six Mile Ranch Company, Craig S. Bleazard, John C. Bleazard, and Mark C. Bleazard (collectively, "the Bleazards") petitioned Tooele County ("the County") to vacate its interests in the northern portion of the main access road to the area, West Stansbury Road. Subsequently, the County published notice of the Blea-zards' petition to vacate West Stansbury Road in the local newspaper, the Tooele Transeript-Bulletin. This notice, which appeared in the Transcript-Builletin once a week from May 18 to June 8, 1993, stated in pertinent part:

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Tooele County Commission will conduct a public hearing [on] June 15, 1998, ... concerning a proposal to vacate approximately eight (8) miles of the northerly portion of the Tocele County road located along the West side of Stansbury Island. A petition from landowners whose property adjoins the majority of this County road was filed with Tooele County asking that this road be vacated. One land owner in the same area is not included in the petition for vacation and, therefore, the Tooele County Commission, pursuant to its own order, has included the remainder of the County road running through these properties for consideration to be vacated.
The legal description of the County road considered for vacation is as follows:
Commencing along the South line of Section 16, Township 1 North, Range 6 West, Salt Lake Base and Meridian, and continuing North through Sections 6, 9, 4 and 5 of the said Township and Range; and thence running through Sections 82, 29, 20, 21, 16 and 9 of Township 2 North, Range 6 West, Salt Lake Base and Meridian.

In addition to its notice in the Transcript, Bulletin, the County mailed written notice of the proposal to various property owners with land abutting West Stansbury Road, but it did not send written notice to the State of Utah ("the State").

T3 Shortly thereafter, on June 15, 1998, the County held a public hearing concerning the Bleazards' petition. Approximately one month later, on August 17, 1998, the County enacted by a two-to-one vote Tooele County Ordinance 93-9, vacating the County's interest in West Stansbury Road pursuant to the description of the road published in the County's prior notice.

14 On June 11, 1999, the State filed suit in the Third District Court for Tooele County challenging the validity of Ordinance 93-9 pursuant to sections 27-12-102.3 and - 102.4 of the Utah Code. Specifically, the State alleged that in adopting the ordinance, the County did not adhere to the notice requirements of section 27-12-102.4 because it did not mail the State written notice of the proposed vacation. At the time the County adopted Ordinance 98-9, section 27-12-102.4 provided:

No county road shall be ... vacated [pursuant to a landowner petition], unless notice of the pendency of the petition ... be given by publishing in a newspaper published or of general circulation in such county onee a week for four consecutive weeks preceding action on such petition or intention, or, where no newspaper is published in the county by posting the notice in three public places therein for four consecutive weeks preceding such petition, and by mailing such notice to all owners of record of land abutting the county road proposed to be vacated addressed to the mailing addresses appearing on the rolls of the county assessor of the county wherein said land is located.

Utah Code Ann. § 27-12-1024 (Supp.1993). The State argued that it was entitled to notice under this provision because West Stansbury Road crossed and abutted sovereign lands located below the meander line of the Great Salt Lake, lands owned by the State since 1896 in conjunction with Utah's entry into the Union. See, e.g., Utah v. United States, 403 U.S. 9, 12-13, 91 S.Ct. 1775, 29 L.Ed.2d 279 (1971).

T5 Subsequently, on September 8, 1999, the State moved for summary judgment on the ground that the County had not complied with section 27-12-1024's notice requirements. According to the State, section 27-12-1024 required the County "to give notice by mail to abutting landowners in addition to publication in a newspaper or posting in three conspicuous places," and the County's failure to provide mailed notice rendered its vacation of the road null and void. In response, the County argued that the State was not entitled to mailed notice under seetion 27-12-1024 because, according to the County, the State did not "appear [as an owner of record] on the rolls of the county assessor" and was not "an owner of record of land abutting the road to be vacated."

T6 On December 15, 1999, the Bleazards filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. In their motion, the Bleazards contended, among other things, that the County's failure to mail the State notice of its proposal to vacate West Stansbury Road was not fatal to Ordinance 938-9 because section 27-12-1024 "only require[d] written notice when notice by publication is not available." The Blea-zards further argued that the State "was not a landowner listed on the rolls of the County assessor," and thus, section 27-12-1024 did not require the County to mail the State notice of the proposed vacation. Finally, the Bleazards asserted that even if section 27-12-1024 required counties to provide mailed notice in addition to notice by publication, the State was not entitled to mailed notice because the County's interests in West Stans-bury Road "terminate[(d] nearly [one] half mile from the nearest sovereign land."

T7 Following the parties' respective motions for summary judgment, the district court conducted a hearing to consider whether the County's failure to mail the State notice of the proposed vacation of West Stansbury Road was improper. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court found that although "a question of fact [existed] as to whether the road [reached] to the meander line ... and whether the State [was] an abutting landowner" of the road, the County had complied with section 27-12-1024 because publishing notice in the Tramscript Bulletin was "sufficient" under the statute. Accordingly, the court entered summary judgment in favor of the County and the Bleazards in an order dated May 8, 2000. Interpreting section 27-12-1024 to require either (1) notice by publication or (2) notice by posting and mailing, the court ruled: "(Section] 27-12-1024 did not require that written notice be provided to the abutting landowners when notice by publication has been made[.]" The court further held that even if section 27-12-102.4 mandated mailed written notice, the County was not required to send such notice to the State because "it was not an abutting property owner on the rolls of the Tooele County Assessor." The State now appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Tooele County and the Bleazards.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

18 Summary judgment is proper only when there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Utah R. Civ. P. 56(c); see also, e.g., Wilcox v. Geneva Rock Corp., 911 P.2d 367, 368 (Utah 1996). In reviewing a grant of summary judgment, we afford "no deference to the trial court's conclusions of law: those conclusions are reviewed for correctness." Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Utah v. State, 779 P.2d 634, 636 (Utah 1989); see also, e.g., Dairy Prod. Servs., Inc. v. City of Wellsville, 2000 UT 81, ¶ 5, 13 P.3d 581. Likewise, a district court's interpretation of a statutory provision is a question of law that we review for correctness. Bearden v. Croft, 2001 UT 76, ¶ 5, 31 P.3d 537; see also, e.g., Stephens v. Bonneville Travel, Inc., 935 P.2d 518, 519 (Utah 1997).

ANALYSIS

T 9 On appeal, the State raises two issues. First, the State argues that the district court erroneously interpreted section 27-12-1024 of the Utah Code by (1) construing the provision as requiring counties to send abutting landowners mailed notice of a proposed road vacation only when notice by publication is not available, and by (2) reading the provision as requiring counties to send mailed notice to parties who own abutting land only if that ownership is recorded on the rolls of the county assessor. Second, the State contends that the court erred by refusing to grant summary judgment in the State's favor because, under a proper interpretation of section 27-12-1024, counties are required to provide abutting landowners mailed notice of a proposed vacation, and the County failed to serve the State with such notice. We address each issue in turn.

I. MAILED NOTICE

110 When interpreting statutes, our primary goal is to evince "the true intent and purpose of the Legislature." Jensen v. Intermountain Health Care, Inc., 679 P.2d 903, 906 (Utah 1984). To discern the legislature's intent and purpose, we look first to the "best evidence" of a statute's meaning, the plain language of the act. Id.; see also, e.g., City of Hildale v. Cooke, 2001 UT 56, ¶ 36, 28 P.3d 697; Hall v. Utah State Dep't of Corr., 2001 UT 34, ¶ 15, 24 P.3d 958. In reading the language of an act, moreover, we seek "to render all parts [of the statute] relevant and meaningful," Millett v. Clark Clinic Corp., 609 P.2d 934, 936 (Utah 1980), and we therefore "presume the legislature use[d] each term advisedly and ... according to its ordinary meaning." Nelson v. Salt Lake County, 905 P.2d 872, 875 (Utah 1995). Consequently, we "avoid interpretations that will render portions of a statute superfluous or inoperative." Hall, 2001 UT 34 at ¶ 15, 24 P.3d 958; see also, e.g., Platts v. Parents Helping Parents, 947 P.2d 658, 662 (Utah 1997).

{ 11 In the case now before us, two statutory provisions are relevant to the question of the legislature's intent regarding what notice a county must provide abutting landowners when vacating its interests in a county road. At the time Tooele County enacted Ordinance 98-9, a county could vacate its interests in a road under Utah law if "the county legislative body ... upon hearing [determined] that there [was] good cause for such ... vacation ..., that it [would] not be detrimental to the general interest, and that it should be made." Utah Code Ann. § 27-12-102.1. Before convening such a hearing, however, the county was required to provide notice to abutting landowners in all but one cireumstance. The statute stated:

Notice of the intention of the county legislative body to vacate any county road, or part thereof, shall in all cases be given ... except when there is filed with the county legislative body written consent to such vacation by the owners of the property abutting the part of the county road proposed to be vacated, in which case such notice shall not be required.

Id. § 27-12-102.3. The legislature likewise specified in detail the content of, form of service for, and class of recipients to which a county's notice of a proposed vacation should be sent. Section 27-12-1024 mandated that the county provide "notice of the pendency of the petition [for vacation] and the date of the hearing thereon," and that such notice

be given by publishing in a newspaper published or of general circulation in such county onee a week for four consecutive weeks preceding action on such petition or intention, or, where no newspaper is published in the county by posting the notice in three public places therein for four consecutive weeks preceding such petition, and by mailing such notice to all owners of record of land abutting the county road proposed to be vacated addressed to the mailing addresses appearing on the rolls of the county assessor of the county wherein said land is located.

Id. § 27-12-1024.

112 The State asserts that the district court should not have granted summary judgment to the County and the Bleazards under section 27-12-1024 because it did so on the basis of an incorrect interpretation of Utah's road abandonment statute. Specifically, the State argues that the court erred by construing section 27-12-102.4 as requiring mailed notice only when notice by publication is not available, and then only to abutting landowners whose ownership is recorded on the rolls of the county assessor. We agree that the district court incorrectly interpreted section 27-12-102.4 in both instances.

A. - Form of Service

113 The plain language of section 27-12-1024 is unambiguous in regard to the form of service mandated by the provigion's notice requirement. The section clearly indicates that a county proposing to vacate its interests in a road must provide both notice to the public through a newspaper publication or through posting and notice to landowners directly affected by the proposal through the mail. In pertinent part, the section states that notice shall be given

by publishing in a newspaper ..., or, where no newspaper is published ... by posting the notice in three public places ..., and by mailing such notice to all owners of record.... *

Id. § 27-12-102.4. An application of "elementary rules of punctuation and grammar" further bolsters this reading of section 27-12, 102.4. Newspaper Agency Corp. v. Auditing Div. of Utah State Tax Comm'n, 938 P.2d 266, 271 (Utah 1997). Although courts need not always consider punctuation to discern legislative intent, courts should not "arbitrarily ignore punctuation, but [should] give it due consideration and effect" where it may be used as an aid to ascertain the legislature's purpose. Bd. of Educ. v. Hanchett, 50 Utah 289, 293, 167 P. 686, 687 (1917); see also, eg., Elliot Coal Mining Co. v. Dir., Office of Workers' Comp. Programs, 17 F.3d 616, 629-30 (3d Cir.1994) ("[The presence of a comma before the last clause in the statute suggests that the limiting elause applies to the entire series."). Here, the legislature's inclusion of commas both before and after the phrase "where no newspaper is published ... by posting the notice in three public places" serves to separate that clause from the preceding notice by publication and the subsequent notice by mail clauses. Utah Code Ann. § 27-12-1024. In doing so, the legislature has set the notice by posting clause apart from the others, and thus, clarified that notice by posting is merely an alternative to notice by publication when publication is unavailable, while mailed notice is required in all cases.

{14 Indeed, construing section 27-12-102.4 as allowing either notice by publication or notice by posting and notice by mail would nullify one statutory provision at the expense of preserving, at best, an alternate reading of another. Section 27-12-102.3 of the road abandonment statute exempts counties from the requirements of section 27-12, 102.4 under the narrow cireumstance where the landowners abutting the road proposed to be vacated unanimously consent in writing to the vacation. Id. § 27-12-102.3. If section 27-12-1024 were construed as not requiring counties to mail notice to abutting landowners, however, the consent exemption of seetion 27-12-102.3 would become superfluous, since a county could vacate its interests in a road without ever specifically noticing those abutting landowners. Not only would such a construction place undue-and legislatively unanticipated-faith in the ability of the smallest of notices in a region's newspaper to reach the widest of audiences, but it would violate our "fundamental duty" to give effect to every provision of a statute. Madsen v. Borthick, 769 P.2d 245, 252 n. 11 (Utah 1988); see also Hall, 2001 UT 34 at ¶¶ 15, 18, 24 P.3d 958; Platts, 947 P.2d at 662.

I 15 Accordingly, we hold that the district court erred by ruling section 27-12-1024 "did not require that written notice be provided to the abutting landowners" because the County had published notice in the Tron-script-Bulletin. - Rather, at the time the County proposed to vacate West Stansbury Road, the statute clearly required that counties provide both (1) public notice through publication or posting and (2) private notice via mail to abutting landowners.

B. Class of Recipients

16 Having determined that mailed notice is required under section 27-12-1024 regardless of whether a county publishes notice, we now turn to the question of to whom the County was required to provide mailed notice in this case. In its order granting summary judgment to the County and the Bleazards, the district court held that the County was not required to send mailed notice to the State because section 27-12-1024 mandated mailed notice only to abutting landowners whose ownership was indicated on the county assessor's rolls, and the State "was not an abutting property owner on the rolls of the Tooele County Assessor."

117 Contrary to the district court's interpretation, however, section 27-12-1024's mailed notice provision does not limit its class of intended recipients to abutting landowners whose ownership is indicated on the rolls of the county assessor. Rather, the provision directs counties to mail notice to all abutting landowners of record, using each respective landowner's contact information as listed on the county assessor's rolls to address the notices for mailing. The provision states:

No county road shall be ... vacated, unless notice of the pendency of the petition ... be given ... by mailing such notice to all owners of record of land abutting the county road proposed to be vacated addressed to the mailing addresses appearing on the rolls of the county assessor of the county wherein the land is located.

Utah Code Ann. § 27-12-102.4 (emphasis added). Thus, it is clear from the plain language of the statute that the district court erred by limiting section 27-12-102.4's mailed notice requirement to abutting landowners whose contact information is listed "on the rolls of the county assessor." Id. The terms "on the rolls of the county assessor" comprise only one part of the larger clause "addressed to the mailing addresses appearing on the rolls of the county assessor," and that clause indicates the place to which such notices should be sent without restricting in any way the scope of the parties that shall be noticed. Id.

1 18 Consequently, the relevant inquiry becomes not whether a landowner's contact information is listed on the rolls of the county assessor, but whether the landowner qualifies as a member of the class to which the county is required to provide mailed notice. To determine the parameters of this class, we again turn to the plain language of section 27-12-102.4, which, as noted, requires that mailed notice be given "to all owners of record of land abutting the county road proposed to be vacated." Id. Thus, a county intending to vacate its interests in a road must send mailed notice to parties that satisfy two conditions, i.e., to parties who are (1) "owners of record" of land that (2) "abut[s] the county road proposed to be vacated." Id. To assess whether a given landowner satisfies these conditions, however, we must first construe each term "according to its ordinary and accepted meaning." Nelson v. Salt Lake County, 905 P.2d 872, 875 (Utah 1995); see also, e.g., Arredondo v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., Inc., 2001 UT 29, ¶12, 24 P.3d 928; Zoll & Branch, P.C. v. Asay, 932 P.2d 592, 594 (Utah 1997).

1. "Owners of Record"

119 "Owner of record" is a legal term that denotes a "property owner in whose name the title appears in the public records." Black's Law Dictionary 1131 (7th ed.1999). Under most cireumstances, such records are located in the place designated by the applicable recording act. In Utah, for instance, landowners record title to their property "in the office of the recorder of the county where the real property is located," Utah Code Ann. § 57-3-101(1) (2000), and this act of recording serves the purpose of "impart[ing] notice to all persons" of the owner's interest in the property. Id. § 57-3-101. Where state sovereign lands are involved, however, notice by recording with a designated government official is unnecessary because ownership of the property is vested in the state upon entrance into the Union, and the state's designation of those lands in its constitution, statutes, or otherwise therefore becomes the state's "public record" of its sovereign ownership. As the United States Supreme Court has stated, "It is settled law in this country that lands underlying navigable waters within a state belong to the State in its sovereign capacity...." United States v. Holt State Bank, 270 U.S. 49, 54, 46 S.Ct. 197, 70 L.Ed. 465 (1926). Consequently, a party qualifies as an "owner of record" under section 27-12-1024 of the Utah Code if (1) the party has recorded title to the land at issue with the county recorder, or if (2) the land at issue is state sovereign land and is designated as such by public record.

2. "Land Abutting the County Road Proposed To Be Vacated"

Like "owner of record," the word "abut" is a term commonly used in the context of property law. In its most ordinary sense, the term is employed to describe properties that "join at a border or boundary." - Black's Low Dictionary 10 (7th ed.1999). For example, in Farnsworth v. Soter's, Inc., we observed: " '[Albut' ... 'conveys the idea of bordering on, [or] bounded by, with nothing intervening." " 24 Utah 2d 199, 200, 468 P.2d 372, 373 (1970) (citation omitted) (emphasis omitted); see also 1 C.J.S. Abut (1985). Accordingly, land that joins, borders, or bounds a county road proposed to be vacated, with nothing intervening, is considered to be land that "abut[s] the county road" under section 27-12-102.4.

II. FAILURE TO PROVIDE MAILED NOTICE

{21 Because section 27-12-1024 requires counties to provide mailed notice "to all owners of record of land abutting the county road proposed to be vacated," we now examine the State's second claim on appeal: that the district court erred by refusing to grant summary judgment in the State's favor because the County failed to send the State mailed notice of the proposed vacation of West Stansbury Road.

122 As a preliminary matter, we note that the. County concedes on appeal that it "did not mail notice to the State of Utah." Moreover, because notice is required, under section 27-12-102.4 to ensure that a "county legislative body" considering a road vacation receives a full opportunity to receive comment on whether a proposed vacation "will not be detrimental to the general interest," Utah Code Ann. § 27-12-102.1, failure to provide the required notice under section 27-12-1024 renders a county's vacation of its interests in a road "a nullity." Ercanbrack v. Judd, 524 P.2d 595, 597 (Utah 1974); see also Henderson v. Osguthorpe, 657 P.2d 1268, 1270 (Utah 1982) (stating that "even where a substantial period of nonuse of a public roadway has elapsed, no vacation occurs unless the specific statutory requirements of [see-tions] 27-12-102.1 to -102.4 are met"). Consequently, whether the district court erred by refusing to grant summary judgment in the State's favor turns solely on whether the State qualified as a member of the class to which the County was required to provide such notice, specifically, as an "owner of ree-ord" of land that "abutted" West Stansbury Road.

$23 In this case, it is clear that the State qualifies as an "owner of record" for the purposes of receiving mailed notice under Utah's road vacation statute. Under section 27-12-1024, an "owner of record" is a landowner that either has recorded title with the recorder of the county where the property is located or owns the property as a sovereign with the property designated as such by public record. See supra 119. Here, the land at issue is sovereign land that lies below the meander line of the Great Salt Lake. Fee title to this land became vested in the State in its sovereign capacity when Utah entered the Union in 1896, a fact reflected in article XX of the Utah Constitution, codified in the State's statutes since 1898, and reaffirmed by the United States Supreme Court under the equal footing doctrine in 1971. The most recent version of the relevant section of the Utah Code, which was in effect at the time the County adopted Ordinance 98-9, likewise defines "sovereign lands" as including "those lands lying below the ordinary high water mark of navigable bodies of water at the date of statehood and owned by the state by virtue of its sovereignty." Utah Code Ann. § 65A-1-1(5) (2000). Indeed, in Utah State Road Commission v. Hardy Salt Co., we stated:

We [hold] that [the] Great Salt Lake is a navigable body of water, and that the ownership of the lake bed became vested in the State of Utah at the time of its admission to the Union....

26 Utah 2d 148, 146-47, 486 P.2d 391, 393 (1971); see also State v. Rolio, 71 Utah 91, 107, 262 P. 987, 993 (1927). Under these cireumstances, neither the County nor the Bleazards have any claim that the State is not the owner of record of lands located below the meander line of the Great Salt Lake. It has been repeatedly adjudicated-both by this court and by the United States Supreme Court-that the State owns those lands as an ancillary to its entrance into the Union, and the State has continually made notice of such ownership as a matter of public record, namely, in its statutes and constitution. See Utah Const. art. XX; Utah Code Ann. § 65A-1~1(5); 1927 Utah Laws 9, § 1; Utah Rev. Stat. § 62-1-2825 (1898). Indeed, given that Utah's statutes have recognized sovereign ownership of lands below the meander line of the Great Salt Lake for over a hundred years, no legitimate argument can be made that the State's ownership of those lands was not a matter of public record in 1993. See, eg., Utah Code Ann. § 65A-1-1(5); 1927 Utah Laws 9, § 1; Utah Rev. Stat. § 62-1-2825 (1898); see also Rolio, 71 Utah at 106-07, 262 P. at 992-93 (describing the relevant statutory provisions' evolution from 1911 to 1927). Therefore, we hold that the State is the owner of record of lands located below the meander line of the Great Salt Lake for purposes of section 27-12-102.4.

124 As a result, if the State's property located below the meander line of the Great Salt Lake abuts West Stansbury Road as described in the County's proposed vacation notice and subsequent enactment, then Ordinance 93-9's vacation of the County's interests in the road is null and void. See Ercamnbrack, 524 P.2d at 597. In granting summary judgment, however, the district court did not rule on whether the State's land abutted the county road. Rather, the court found that "a question of fact [existed] as to whether the road even went to the meander line ... and whether the State wlas] an abutting landowner," and then granted summary judgment in favor of the County and the Bleazards based upon its erroneous reading of section 27-12-1024 as not requiring mailed notice where a county has provided notice by publication. Accordingly, because the district court did not determine whether the State's property abutted West Stansbury Road, a disputed issue of material fact exists, and we therefore remand to the district court for a determination on this issue. See Lamb v. B & B Amusements Corp., 869 P.2d 926, 928 (Utah 1993) ("The party moving for summary judgment must establish a right to judgment based on the applicable law as applied to an undisputed material issue of fact."); see also, e.g., K & T, Inc. v. Koroulis, 888 P.2d 623, 628 (Utah 1994); Transamerica Cash Reserve, Inc. v. Dixie Power & Water, Inc., 789 P.2d 24, 25 (Utah 1990); Utah R. Civ. P. 56(c).

T25 In determining on remand whether the State's sovereign lands abut West Stans-bury Road, the district court shall apply the correct legal standard under section 27-12, 102.4. Specifically, the court shall determine whether the State's land joins, borders, or bounds, with nothing intervening, West Stansbury Road as it is described in the County's proposed vacation notice and subsequent enactment of that proposal:

Commencing along the South line of Section 16, Township 1 North, Range 6 West, Salt Lake Base and Meridian, and continuing North through Sections 6, 9, 4 and 5 of the said Township and Range; and thence running through Sections 82, 29, 20, 21, 16 and 9 of Township 2 North, Range 6 West, Salt Lake Base and Meridian.

See Farnsworth v. Soter's, Inc., 24 Utah 2d 199, 200, 468 P.2d 372, 373 (1970). If the district court determines that the State's land abuts West Stansbury Road as it is described in the County's proposed vacation notice, then the court must grant summary judgment in the State's favor, overturning Tooele County Ordinance 98-9 as null and void. See Ercambrack, 524 P.2d at 597. If, conversely, the court determines that the State's land does not abut the road, then the court shall enter summary judgment in favor of the County and the Bleazards, allowing Ordinance 93-9 to remain in effect.

CONCLUSION

T 26 The district court erred by construing section 27-12-1024 of the Utah Code as requiring counties to provide mailed notice of a proposed road vacation only where notice by publication is not available, by ruling that mailed notice need be provided only to abutting landowners whose ownership is reflected on the rolls of the county assessor, and thus, by granting summary judgment in favor of Tooele County and the Bleazards. Accordingly, we reverse the district court's summary judgment order and remand for further proceedings in a manner consistent with this opinion.

127 Chief Justice HOWE, Justice DURHAM, Justice DURRANT, and Justice WILKINS concur in Associate Chief Justice RUSSON'S opinion.

      . Stansbury Island is located at the southwest edge of the Great Salt Lake. Due to the lake's changing water levels, however, this "island" is currently a peninsula In fact, "Itlhere have been wide fluctuations of the elevation of the lake since it was first surveyed in 1850." Utah State Rd. Comm'n v. Hardy Salt Co., 26 Utah 2d 143, 145, 486 P.2d 391, 392 (1971).

      . In 1998, the legislature amended and recodi-fied section 27-12-102.4 as section 72-3-108 of the Utah Code. See Utah Code Ann. § 72-3-108 (Supp.1999). Then, in 2000, the legislature amended section 72-3-108 to its current version. See Utah Code Ann. § 72-3-108 (Supp.2001). However, "we apply the law as it existed at the time of the violation charged," and we thus apply section 27-12-102.4 in this case as it existed in 1993. Featherstone v. Schaerrer, 2001 UT 86, n. 2, 34 P.3d 194; see also Airport Hilton Ventures, Ltd. v. Utah State Tax Comm'n, 1999 UT 26, n. 1, 976 P.2d 1197.

      . A meander line is a "survey line ... on a portion of land, usu[ally] following the course of a river or stream." Black's Law Dictionary 995 (7th ed.1999). Apparently, the meander line of the Great Salt Lake was surveyed in various segments between 1855 and 1966. Great Salt Lake Planning Team, Utah Dep't of Natural Resources, Great Salt Lake Comprehensive Management Plan and Decision Document 10 (2000).

      . Moreover, we note that requiring the State to record title to its sovereign lands with a county recorder pursuant to section 57-3-101 would lead to truly absurd results, since, unlike properties it purchases or takes from other landowners, the State assumes ownership of these lands in its capacity as sovereign and thus never receives written title to the lands. Therefore, although the State clearly owns its sovereign lands, it simply has no written title of the lands to record with a county recorder. See State v. Redd, 1999 UT 108, ¶ 12, 992 P.2d 986 ("Our clear preference is the reading that reflects sound public policy, as we presume that must be what the legislature intended. In other words, we interpret a statute to avoid absurd consequences." (citation omitted)); see also, e.g., Alta Indus. Ltd. v. Hurst, 846 P.2d 1282, 1292 & n. 24 (Utah 1993); Schurtz v. BMW of N. Am., Inc., 814 P.2d 1108, 1113 (Utah 1991); Clover v. Snowbird Ski Resort, 808 P.2d 1037, 1045 n. 39 (Utah 1991).

      . - "[The 'equal footing' principle [accords] newly admitted States the same property interests in submerged lands as was enjoyed by the Thirteen Original States as successors to the British Crown." Utah v. United States, 403 U.S. 9, 10, 91 S.Ct. 1775, 29 L.Ed.2d 279 (1971).

      . See Utah Const. art. XX ("All lands of the State that have been ... acquired ... are hereby accepted, and declared to be the public lands of the State. ..."); 1927 Utah Laws 9, § 1 ("[The beds of all ... streams and lakes which at the time of said admission of Utah into the Union were navigable in fact ... has at all times thereafter been and now is vested in the State of Utah."); Utah Rev. Stat. § 62-1-2325 (1898) (giving state board of land commissioners control of "all lands heretofore ... granted to this state by the government"); Utah v. United States, 403 U.S. 9, 12-13, 91 S.Ct. 1775, 29 L.Ed.2d 279 (1971) (holding that lands below the meander line of the Great Salt Lake were navigable in 1896, and thus, belong to Utah and not the United States); see also Utah v. United States, 420 U.S. 304, 95 S.Ct. 1153, 43 L.Ed.2d 211 (1975).

      . Despite the district court's finding that a disputed issue of material fact existed as to whether West Stansbury Road abuts the State's sovereign lands below the meander line, the Bleazards assert on appeal that the State is not an abutting landowner "as a matter of law." Specifically, the Bleazards contend that the portion of West Stansbury Road that crosses the meander line was never public and "is in fact a private easement leading to ... MagCorp['s] parcel and a private road across the MagCorp parcel to ... the Great Salt Lake." In making this argument, however, the Bleazards neither challenge the district court's factual finding nor provide this court with adequate, judicially noticeable evidence to determine that the road does not abut the State's land as a matter of law. In fact, even the County's own proposed vacation notice, which indicates that the County intended to vacate a road "running through" the survey section where MagCorp's land is located, suggests that it simply is not agreed whether the County's interests in West Stansbury Road continued to the meander line of the Great Salt Lake. Therefore, as explained above, we must remand the issue of abutment for further proceedings before the district court.