author: DURRANT, Associate Chief Justice:

text:
    2004 UT 23
    SALT LAKE COUNTY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. METRO WEST READY MIX, INC., a Utah corporation, and Monterra Rock Products, Inc., a Utah corporation, Defendants and Appellees.
    No. 20020701.
    Supreme Court of Utah.
    March 23, 2004.

      David E. Yocom, Don H. Hansen, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff.
    Mark R. Clements, Mark H. Richards, Salt Lake City, for defendants.
   DURRANT, Associate Chief Justice:

¶ 1 In this case we address whether a purchaser who obtains title to property through a wild deed can be a bona fide purchaser under Utah’s Recording Statute.

¶2 The dispute at issue is between Salt Lake County (the “County”) and Metro West Ready Mix, Inc. (“Metro West”) over the ownership of Parcel G, a fifteen-acre piece of property located in Utah County near the border between Utah and Salt Lake Counties (the “Property”). The County received legal title to the Property on December 4, 1878; however, it failed to record its deed in the Utah County Recorder’s Office until June 17, 1998.

¶ 3 Nine years before the County recorded its deed in Utah County, Metro West purchased the Property from the Property’s purported owners. Metro West did so even though a record title search revealed that the owners had no record title to the Property. Metro West subsequently recorded its quitclaim deed in the Utah County Recorder’s Office on April 14,1989.

¶ 4 After learning of Metro West’s claimed ownership, the County filed suit in 1999 to quiet title to the Property. The trial court found that Metro West was a bona fide purchaser under Utah’s Recording Statute and granted summary judgment in favor of Metro West. The County appealed, and the court of appeals affirmed based on its newly-enunciated “apparent title rule.” We reverse.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

¶ 5 The United States Government conveyed the Property by land patent to William Turner in 1878. The Property is located in Utah County, with its northern border abutting the Utah County/Salt Lake County line. In 1878, Turner conveyed the Property to the County by warranty deed, which the County immediately recorded in Salt Lake County. In 1998, approximately 120 years later, the County recorded its warranty deed in Utah County.

¶ 6 Nine years before the County recorded its warranty deed in Utah County, Metro West’s predecessor-in-interest, Lamona Farms, approached the purported owners of the Property, Darhl and Roena Tingey (“the Tingeys”), and inquired as to the purchase price. The Tingeys represented to Lamona Farms’s owners that the Tingey family had been in possession of and had used the Property since the turn of the century. The Tingeys would only agree to convey the Property, however, by quitclaim deed. The Tingeys explained that they were unable to convey the Property by warranty deed due to a 1,000-foot discrepancy in the Property description. This discrepancy, the Tingeys claimed, was created when the state of Utah began staking its section markers at both the north and south ends of the state. The Utah County Recorder’s Office confirmed this discrepancy.

¶ 7 Before purchasing the Property, one of Lamona Farms’s owners and a title company both reviewed the records at the Utah County Recorder’s Office and determined that nothing in the records conflicted with the Tingeys’ ownership representations. It is undisputed, however, that the Utah County Recorder’s Office never listed the Tingeys as owners of the Property, and that the Tingeys were strangers to the recqrd title.

¶ 8 The Tingeys conveyed the Property to Lamona Farms by quitclaim deed on April 14, 1989, for $25,000. Lamona Farms promptly recorded its quitclaim deed in Utah County. In 1991, Lamona Farms transferred the Property to Monterra Rock Products, Inc., which merged two year’s later into Metro West.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶ 9 In February 1999, the County filed an action to quiet title to the Property. Metro West filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that it possessed legal ownership of the Property because (1) it was a bona fide purchaser under Utah’s Recording Statute, see Utah Code Ann. § 57-3-103 (2000); (2) it had adversely possessed the Property under Utah’s Adverse Possession Statute, see Utah Code Ann. §§ 78-12-7 to -13 (1996); and (3) principles of equity and public policy supported its ownership entitlement. The trial court granted Metro West’s motion based upon Utah, Code section 57-3-103 and the “undisputed facts that [Metro West] purchased [the Property] for valuable consideration and in good faith, and recorded its deed in Utah County prior to any recording there by [the County].” The County appealed.

¶ 10 The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision. Salt Lake County v. Metro West Ready Mix, Inc., 2002 UT App 257, 53 P.3d 499. In so doing, the court of appeals announced an “apparent title rule,” under which a purchaser is entitled to bona fide purchaser protection where the records are silent with respect to ownership “if the grantor had apparent legal title, even if he or she did not have perfect legal title.” Id. at ¶ 11. Apparent title, according to the court of appeals, is determined by considering “(1) whether the purported owner claimed to own the property; (2) whether the purported owner possessed the property; and (3) whether there was any activity or indication on the property that would raise questions as to who owned the property.” Id. at ¶ 13. Under this apparent title doctrine, the court of appeals reasoned that the trial court was correct in extending bona fide purchaser protection to Metro West because the records were silent as to the Tingeys’ ownership; the Tingeys had asserted that they had owned the Property since the turn of the century; the Tingeys were in possession of the Property; and the County did not have any signs or carry out any activity on the Property that would lead Metro West to believe that the Tingeys were not the legal owners of the Property. Id. at ¶¶ 15-16. The County petitioned for certiorari review of the court of appeals’ decision, which we granted pursuant to Utah Code section 78-2-2(5) (2002).

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 11 “When exercising our certiora-ri jurisdiction, we review the decision of the court of appeals, not of the trial court.” Mitchell v. Christensen, 2001 UT 80, ¶ 8, 31 P.3d 572 (internal quotations omitted). Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Utah R. Civ. P. 56(c). “[B]e-eause a summary judgment presents questions of law, we accord no particular deference to the court of appeals’ ruling” and review it for correctness. Mitchell, 2001 UT 80 at ¶ 8, 31 P.3d 572 (citing Ron Case Roofing & Asphalt Paving, Inc. v. Blomquist, 773 P.2d 1382, 1385 (Utah 1989)).

ANALYSIS

I. UTAH’S RECORDING STATUTE

¶ 12 The County argues that the court of appeals erred in holding that a purchaser is protected under Utah’s Recording Statute when he is on notice that his grantor has no record title to the property conveyed. We agree.

¶ 13 Utah’s Recording Statute provides as follows:

Each document not recorded as provided in this title is void as against any subsequent purchaser of the same real property, or any portion of it, if:
(1) the subsequent purchaser purchased the property in good faith and for a valuable consideration; and
(2) the subsequent purchaser’s document is first duly recorded.

Utah Code Ann. § 54-3-103 (2000). To be in good faith, a subsequent purchaser must take the property without notice of a prior, unrecorded interest in the property. See Ault v. Holden, 2002 UT 33, ¶ 31, 44 P.3d 781. In addition, to be in good faith a subsequent purchaser must also take the property “without notice of any infirmity in his grant- or’s title.” Pender v. Bird, 119 Utah 91, 96, 224 P.2d 1057, 1059 (1950); see also Paldevco Ltd. P’ship v. City of Auburn Hills, No. 202134, 1998 WL 1988569, *2, 1998 Mich.App. LEXIS 626, at *5 (Mieh.Ct.App. Dee. 18, 1998) (unpublished per curiam decision) (noting “[a] good-faith purchaser is one who purchases without notice of a defect in the vendor’s title” and that “[njotice need only be of the possibility of the rights of another, not positive knowledge of those rights”). This notice is not confined to situations in which a subsequent purchaser has actual notice of an unrecorded interest or infirmity in the grant- or’s title. Rather, it includes circumstances where a purchaser has constructive notice of such information, including both (1) record notice “ ‘which results from a record or which is imputed by the recording statutes,’ ” and (2) inquiry notice “ ‘which is presumed because of the fact that a person has knowledge of certain facts which should impart to him, or lead him to, knowledge of the ultimate fact.’ ” First Am. Title Ins. Co. v. J.B. Ranch, Inc., 966 P.2d 834, 837 (Utah 1998) (quoting 66 C.J.S. Notice § 6 (1950)).

¶ 14 The County argues that because a search of the Utah County records revealed that the Tingeys had no record title to the Property, Metro West was necessarily on inquiry notice of a defect in the Tingeys’ title. According to the County, under this inquiry notice analysis the lack of record title would have led a reasonable person to have discovered the County’s recorded title to the Property in the Salt Lake County Recorder’s Office. Consequently, the County asserts that Metro West cannot be a good faith purchaser without notice under the recording statute.

¶ 15 We agree that the Tingeys’ lack of record title put Metro West on notice of a defect in the Tingeys’ title. However, we do so not because Metro West was on inquiry notice of the defect, but because Metro West had both actual and constructive record notice of the defect, which precluded it from taking the Property in good faith.

¶ 16 Because the Tingeys had no record title to the Property when they transferred it to Metro West, the conveyance was carried out through what is commonly referred to as a “wild deed.” See Poladian v. Johnson, 85 So.2d 140, 140 (Fla.1955) (en banc) (“A ‘wild deed’ is one executed by a stranger to the record title....”); 11 Thompson on Real Property, Thomas Edition, § 92.11(c) (David A. Thomas ed., 1994) (“[A] ‘wild deed’ [is one] executed by a grantor with no record ownership of the interest-”). Few courts have addressed whether a purchaser who acquires title through a wild deed takes free of an unrecorded interest in the same property under the recording statutes. However, at least one commentator has expressly noted that a purchaser who takes title through a wild deed is not the type of purchaser that recording statutes protect. See Joyce Palomar, Patton and Palomar on Land Titles, § 10 (3d ed. 2003) (“[T]he term ‘bona fide purchaser’ as used in recording acts does not include one who buys from a stranger to the record.”). And the majority of courts that have addressed the issue have held that a purchaser who receives property through a wild deed is not entitled to take free of an unrecorded interest simply by virtue of having recorded a purported conveyance of title executed by a stranger to the record title. See Holland v. Hattaway, 438 So.2d 456, 470 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1983) (noting that because “recording statutes do not support or validate a wild deed or any conveyance of an interest that the grantor does not have,” an appellant whose chain of title traced back to the sovereign had superior interest over an appellee who could only trace title to a wild deed executed by a stranger to the record); Zimmer v. Sundell, 237 Wis. 270, 296 N.W. 589, 591 (1941) (“If one who has no title under the laws governing conveyances is to have a superior one under the recording acts, it should be because he has relied upon the record, and when he purchases from one who is a stranger to the record title he has no grounds for such reliance.”). But see Hyland v. Kirkman, 204 N.J.Super. 345, 498 A.2d 1278, 1284, 1289, 1295-96 (Ct.Ch.Div.1985).

¶ 17 We conclude that a purchaser whose chain of title is founded on a wild deed cannot be a bona fide purchaser under Utah’s Recording Statute. As previously noted, to be in good faith a purchaser must purchase the property without notice of any defect or infirmity in the grantor’s title. Pender, 119 Utah at 96, 224 P.2d at 1059. Because “[o]ne who deals with real property is charged with notice of what is shown by the records of the county recorder of the county in which the property is situated,” Crompton v. Jenson, 78 Utah 55, 70, 1 P.2d 242, 247 (1931), and by implication charged with notice of what the records should show but do not, i.e., a lack of record title in a grantor, we hold that by definition a purchaser whose title is founded on a wild deed is on notice that his grantor had no record title to the property purportedly being conveyed. This is true in instances where, as in this case, the subsequent purchaser has obtained actual notice of this absence by searching the records. Moreover, it is also true even when the purchaser has no actual notice of the title defect, since all grantees of wild deeds are necessarily charged with constructive record notice by virtue of the recording statutes. Accordingly, a purchaser who acquires property through a wild deed will be held to have been on notice of a defect in his grantor’s title and will not qualify as a subsequent purchaser in good faith for purposes of Utah’s Recording Statute.

¶ 18 This is not to say that a purchaser who acquires property through a wild deed can never acquire good title. We merely hold that the recording statutes do not protect such a purchaser as against an unrecorded interest in the same. See Huntington City v. Peterson, 30 Utah 2d 408, 410, 518 P.2d 1246, 1248 (1974) (explaining that recording a deed does not pass title); Horman v. Clark, 744 P.2d 1014, 1016 (Utah Ct.App.1987) (“The recording statute’s purpose is not to make the transfer of property effective as between the parties.... ”). If a purchaser can establish that his grantor possessed and conveyed valid title to the property independent of the recording statutes, a conveyance through wild deed will be effective as against any competing claims.

¶ 19 Applied in this case, because the Tin- ' geys had no record title to the Property, Metro West was on notice of a defect in the Tingeys’ record title and therefore did not purchase the Property in good faith for purposes of Utah’s Recording Statute. As such, it is not a bona fide purchaser and is not entitled to quiet title to the Property as against the County’s unrecorded interest simply because it recorded its purported title first. If, however, the Tingeys acquired valid title to the Property through a means not reflected by the record, such as through adverse possession, the Tingeys conveyed valid title and Metro West would be entitled to quiet title to the Property as against the County. Because the record is insufficient for us to determine whether the Tingeys had valid title to the Property, we remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

II. ADVERSE POSSESSION

¶20 Although not an issue reached by the trial court below, Metro West argues in the alternative that it is entitled to summary judgment because it established ownership of the Property through its own adverse possession. The County contends that not only do disputed material facts exist that preclude summary judgment in Metro West’s favor, but that even if Metro West established all the necessary elements of adverse possession, Metro West is barred from acquiring title through adverse possession under Utah Code section 78-12-13 because the County designated the Property for a public use. See Utah Code Ann. § 78-12-13 (2000).

¶21 “[A]n appellate court may affirm a trial court’s ruling on any proper grounds, even though the trial court relied on some other ground.” DeBry v. Noble, 889 P.2d 428, 444 (Utah 1995). To do so, however, the facts established in the record must be sufficient to support the alternative ground. See Renn v. Utah Bd. of Pardons, 904 P.2d 677, 685 (Utah 1995).

¶ 22 In Utah, a person without legal title is deemed “to have been under and in subordination to” the owner with legal title unless that person has adversely possessed the property. Utah Code Ann. § 78-12-7 (2000). When an occupant has entered into possession of property under a claim of title, the occupant may establish adverse possession by demonstrating that (1) the property was “occupied and claimed for the period of seven years continuously,” id. § 78-12-12; (2) “the party, his predecessors and grantors have paid all taxes which have been levied and assessed [on the property],” id.; and (3) the property was, in pertinent part, “usually cultivated or improved,” “protected by a substantial inclosure[,]” or “used ... for the ordinary use of the occupant,” id. § 78-12-9.

¶ 23 To be entitled to summary judgment on the basis of adverse possession, Metro West must affirmatively show all the statutory elements of adverse possession. See English v. Openshaw, 28 Utah 241, 247, 78 P. 476, 477 (1904) (“To overthrow [the] presumption [that the adverse party is not under subordination to the legal owner’s title], the party claiming adversely ha[s] the burden to establish the fact[ ] by competent evidence .... ”); see also Martin v. Kearl, 917 P.2d 91, 93 n. 5 (Utah Ct.App.1996) (“[B]ecause of the gravity of adverse possession claims—wresting title from otherwise rightful owners—claimants must strictly comply with all requirements.”); 3 Am.Jur.2d Adverse Possession § 311 (1986). In this case, we find at least two key areas of dispute sufficient to render summaiy judgment inappropriate.

¶24 First, there are disputed facts as to whether Metro West’s use of the Property was continuous during the required seven-year period. Metro West argued before both this court and the trial court that “[b]e-ginning in 1990 and continuing thereafter, Metro West improved [the Property] by bulldozing numerous access roads across the property[,] excavating and drilling numerous holes on [the Property,] and conducting regular sample testing of the underground materials.” However, as the County argued to the trial court, whether the nature of this use was sufficiently continuous is in dispute.

¶ 25 For example, prior to transferring the Property to Metro West, Dr. Richards, La-mona Farms’s owner, could not specify during what period he or his employees occupied the Property. Dr. Richards also could not recall how many days his employees spent on the Property conducting testing. And, though he claimed that roads were being made on all of Lamona Farms’s property continuously, Dr. Richards could not identify any times when such roads were made on the Property specifically because he did not know where the Property’s boundaries were. Metro West also had no record of how many days its employees spent on the Property. Roy McNeil, one of Metro West’s principals, testified that he knew Metro West had begun exploring dirt on the Property in 1998; however, he could not say when exploration had occurred between 1990 and 1995.

¶26 Second, a dispute exists regarding whether Metro West paid property taxes on the Property for the seven-year period. As the County correctly asserts, the tax receipts submitted to the trial court do not indicate that the taxes being paid were specifically for the Property. In fact, not only do descriptions provided in the “property description” portion of the receipts differ from year to year, but the total acreage of land identified in the tax receipts changes as well. Based on the tax receipts provided in the record, it is impossible for us to determine whether the varied descriptions on the tax receipts were, in fact, attributable to. the Property.

¶27 Because there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Metro West eon-tinuously used and paid taxes on the Property, Metro West is not entitled to summary judgment and we need not address whether disputed facts exist as to the remaining elements of adverse possession under Utah Code section 78-12-9. Moreover, having determined that Metro West is not entitled to summary judgment on the basis of adverse possession, we need not reach the County’s alternative argument that summary judgment would be barred by the “designated for public use” exception under Utah Code section 78-12-13.

CONCLUSION

¶ 28 To take free of an unrecorded interest in property under Utah’s Recording Statute, a subsequent purchaser must purchase the property in good faith without notice of any defect in his grantor’s title. Because a purchaser whose chain of title is founded on a wild deed necessarily has constructive record notice that his grantor’s record title is defective by virtue of taking title from a stranger to the record, a purchaser who acquires property through a wild deed cannot be a good faith purchaser. Accordingly, Metro West is not a bona fide purchaser under Utah’s Recording Statute and cannot take free of the County’s unrecorded interest in the Property unless it establishes that the Tingeys obtained valid title to the Property through a means other than a recorded conveyance. Moreover, since genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether Metro West adversely possessed the Property, summary judgment is inappropriate. We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

¶ 29 Chief Justice DURHAM, Justice WILKINS, Justice PARRISH, and Justice NEHRING concur in Associate Chief Justice DURRANT’s opinion.

      . Many of the facts recited herein are taken from the court of appeals' opinion. See Sait Lake County v. Metro West Ready Mix, Inc., 2002 UT App 257, ¶¶ 2-4, 53 P.3d 499.

      . To avoid confusion, we hereinafter refer to Metro West’s predecessors-in-interest simply as Metro West.

      . Because this current section is identical to the code section applicable at the time the County filed its quiet title action, we cite the current code provision. Compare Utah Code Ann. § 57-3-3 (1994), with Utah Code Ann. § 57-3-103 (2000).

      . Metro West asserts that the County’s failure to set forth in its opposing memorandum "a statement of facts it claims are in dispute as [required by] [r]ule 4-501(2)(B) of the Utah Code of Judicial Administration” should result in our finding that Metro West's facts "be deemed admitted for purposes of summaiy judgment and this appeal.” It is true that the County’s opposing memorandum did not set forth disputed facts listed in numbered sentences in a separate section as required by the Utah Rules of Judicial Administration. See Utah R. Jud. Admin. 4-501(2)(B). However, given that the disputed facts were clearly provided in the body of the memorandum with applicable record references, we find the failure to comply with the technical requirements of rule 4-501(2)(B) to be harmless in this case. See Hall v. NACM Intermountain, Inc., 1999 UT 97, ¶¶ 19-21, 988 P.2d 942 (noting the failure to specifically set forth a legal basis for the award of attorney fees in compliance with rule 4-505 of the Utah Code of Judicial Administration was a harmless error because the court and both counsel always knew the purpose behind and the basis for the proposed award of fees). Accordingly, we examine whether the County’s disputed facts are sufficient to preclude summary judgment in favor of Metro West.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: DURHAM, Chief Justice:

license: Public Domain

text:
    2004 UT 25
    STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Ronald K. CLARK, Defendant and Appellant.
    No. 20020215.
    Supreme Court of Utah.
    March 26, 2004.
    Mark L. Shurtleff, Att’y Gen., David E. Yocom, Brett J. Delporto, Karen A. Klucznik, Colleen K. Coebergh, Asst. Attys Gen., for plaintiff.
    Catherine E. Lilly, Salt Lake City, for defendant.
   DURHAM, Chief Justice:

BACKGROUND

¶ 1 Defendant Ronald Clark appeals from his jury convictions of one count each of operating a clandestine laboratory, possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance, and use or possession of drug paraphernalia. He claims that he is entitled to a new trial because his trial counsel violated his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel by failing to challenge inappropriate opinion testimony under Utah Rules of Evidence 701, 702 and 704.

¶ 2 In July 1999, Marilyn Milburn, a caseworker from the Division of Child and Family Services, visited defendant’s home to investigate allegations that he was using methamphetamine (meth) and providing an unsafe environment for his two-year-old son. While visiting defendant’s home, Milburn noticed sores on defendant’s arm, a smell that she “associated with meth,” a corked beer bottle with a hose attached to a plastic container, and a surveillance system used to monitor the home’s front entrance. Milburn reported her findings to the police.

¶ 3 The police obtained a no-knock search warrant and commenced an investigation. They found many items needed to create meth in defendant’s home, truck, and shed, including a butane torch, a scale, a homemade vent tube, an ice chest, acetone, paint thinner, iodine, hydrochloric and muriatic acid, filters, a trash bag with tubing attached, and a military-type respirator.

¶ 4 Subsequently, the State brought criminal charges against defendant. Six witnesses, including Milburn, testified that sixty-nine items the police found on defendant’s property were consistent with the operation of a meth lab. The State also presented lab results establishing the presence of meth and meth precursors on defendant’s property. In addition, defendant’s friend testified to purchasing meth from defendant and witnessing him making meth. This friend also testified that she had, at defendant’s request, hidden a box containing his meth lab in her basement.

¶ 5 Defendant claims ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel failed to object to Milburn’s testimony pursuant to Rules 701 and 702, and to the testimony of another officer (Officer Davis), pursuant to Rule 704 of the Utah Rules of Evidence. He argues that his counsel should have objected to Milburn’s testimony regarding a meth smell because, at the time Milburn visited defendant’s home, she had only undergone four hours of meth detection training and she had never personally smelled meth. He further asserts that his counsel should have objected to Davis’s testimony pursuant to Rule 704. Davis’s testimony was that he did not know “of any use for the vent tube other than meth manufacturing” and that he had never seen the butane torch used for anything other than to “heat up drugs.” Defendant argues these statements constituted opinions as to an ultimate issue of fact.

ANALYSIS

¶ 6 An ineffective assistance of counsel claim raised for the first time on appeal presents a question of law. State v. Bryant, 965 P.2d 539, 542 (Utah Ct.App.1998). To prove ineffective assistance of counsel, defendant must show: (1) that counsel’s performance was objectively deficient, and (2) a reasonable probability exists that but for the deficient conduct defendant would have obtained a more favorable outcome at trial. State v. Crosby, 927 P.2d 638, 644 (Utah 1996); see also Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) (requiring that defendant show counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced the case). To satisfy the first part of the test, defendant must overcome the “strong presumption that [his] trial counsel rendered adequate assistance,” Crosby, 927 P.2d at 644, by persuading the court that there was no “conceivable tactical basis for counsel’s actions,” Bryant, 965 P.2d at 542 (emphasis added); see also Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (indicating that counsel should be given wide latitude in making tactical decisions). The court “give[s] trial counsel wide latitude in making tactical decisions and will not question such decisions unless there is no reasonable basis supporting them.” Crosby, 927 P.2d at 644. Defendant fails to meet either prong of the test.

¶ 7 First, we are not persuaded that defense counsel’s performance was objectively deficient. While there may have been grounds to object to Milburn’s and Davis’s testimony under Rules 701, 702, or 704 of the Utah Rules of Evidence, defense counsel may well have made a reasonable tactical choice when he did not object. Given the great volume of evidence introduced to the court, including the presence of sixty-nine materials consistent with meth production at defendant’s home, defense counsel could reasonably have seen little value in objecting to testimony addressing only a small portion of the evidence. Also, it is clear from the record that defense counsel primarily drew upon Milburn and Davis’s testimony in formulating its strategic defense — an attempt to create reasonable doubt by pointing out all of the legal uses for the substances identified. Finally, when defense counsel permitted Davis’s assertions regarding the homemade vent tube and the butane torch, it gave him considerable leverage in discrediting that testimony during cross-examination. This court will not question defense counsel’s actions because defendant has failed to prove that his counsel had no “conceivable tactical basis” for his actions.

¶ 8 Second, defendant failed to establish a reasonable probability of a different outcome had his trial counsel objected to Milburn’s and Davis’s testimony. It is highly unlikely that the verdict would have been different had the trial court modified or withheld Milburn’s and Davis’s testimony. Through other witnesses, the State presented testimony establishing that defendant had sold meth and stashed his portable meth lab at a friend’s house. It also submitted evidence that sixty-nine materials consistent with meth production were found on defendant’s premises. Finally, the State showed that meth, in both powder and liquid form, and meth precursors, were found on the premises.

¶ 9 Thus, even absent Milburn’s and Davis’s testimony, the State presented overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt. It is highly unlikely that defendant’s trial counsel’s failure to object to Milburn’s and Davis’s testimony affected the jury verdict.

CONCLUSION

¶ 10 Defendant has failed to persuade the court that his counsel’s performance was ineffective. Affirmed.

¶ 11 Associate Chief Justice DURRANT, Justice WILKINS, Justice PARRISH, and Justice NEHRING concur in Chief Justice DURHAM’S opinion.

      . In pertinent part, Rules 701, 702, and 704 of the Utah Rules of Evidence read as follows:
      Non-expert witness testimony is “limited to those opinions or inferences which are (a) rationally based on the perception of the witness and (b) helpful to a clear understanding of the witness’ testimony or the determination of a fact in issue.” Utah R. Evid. 701.
      If "specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact” in understanding evidence or determining a fact in issue, a "witness qualified as an expert ... may testify thereto.” Id. 702.
      Expert witnesses may not state opinions or inferences as to ultimate issues; they are "matters for the trier of fact alone." Id. 704.


author: NEHRING, Justice:

text:
    2004 UT 24
    COUNCIL OF HOLLADAY CITY, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Mayor Dennis LARKIN, Defendant and Appellant. Holladay Preservation League, Intervenor and Appellant.
    No. 20030592.
    Supreme Court of Utah.
    March 26, 2004.

      Victoria W. Romney, William R. Hyde, Salt Lake City, for Mayor Dennis Larkin.

      H. Craig Hall, Jody K. Burnett, Ryan D. Bjerke, for Holladay City Council.
    Joseph E. Tesch, Kraig J. Powell, Park City, for intervenor Holladay Preservation League.
    Martin K. Banks, Mark E. Hindley, Salt Lake City, for intervenor Holladay Citizens for Progress.
   NEHRING, Justice:

¶ 1 Holladay City Mayor Dennis Larkin and the Holladay Preservation League appeal a decision by the district court ruling that the Holladay City Council lawfully adopted a resolution to change the form of Holladay City’s government. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

¶2 Holladay City became a fourth class municipality in 1999. At its inception, its citizens adopted a council-mayor form of government. By 2003, discord over municipal policy divided the City Council and Mayor Larkin.

¶ 3 In June 2003, the City Council enacted Resolution No. 03-34. This resolution called for a special election in which the electorate would be given the opportunity to vote on a proposal to replace the council-mayor form of government with the council-manager form. Mayor Larkin opposed the abandonment of the council-mayor form — an understandable position since his office would disappear in the council-manager form. Mayor Larkin argued (1) that Utah law required that the resolution be adopted by the governing body of the City, and (2) that the mayor was part of the governing body and therefore the City Council could not lawfully adopt the resolution without affording him the opportunity to either vote or exercise veto power over it. He further claimed that the City Council had no authority to call for the special election contemplated in the resolution.

¶ 4 In the face of this controversy, the City Council filed a lawsuit seeking declaratory relief. Mayor Larkin moved to dismiss the lawsuit and counterclaimed, alleging that the statutes governing the change in the form of municipal government and the procedures for providing notice of an election to change the form of government were unconstitutional.

¶ 5 The district court rejected Mayor Lar-kin’s claims, found the actions of the City Council lawful, and ordered the election mandated by the resolution to proceed. The mayor appealed. On September 11, 2003, we issued an order affirming the decision of the district court, stating that an opinion would follow.

ANALYSIS

¶ 6 Mayor Larkin’s appeal presents us with issues of statutory and constitutional interpretation which we review for correctness. State v. Schofield, 2002 UT 132, ¶ 6, 63 P.3d 667. We hold that resolution 03-34 was properly enacted by the Holladay City Council, free from formal mayoral participation by either vote or veto. This outcome is mandated by the application of statutes relating to municipal governance and by the wisdom imparted by the constitutions of the United States and of our state — that the power to alter our fundamental institutions of government rests in the legislature and the people, and not in the executive branch. We also hold that the statutes providing notice to the electorate were not an unconstitutional violation of the people’s fundamental right to vote.

I. ENACTMENT OF RESOLUTION 03-34

¶ 7 The Optional Forms of Municipal Government Act authorizes a municipality to propose a reorganization of municipal government through the enactment of a resolution passed by the “governing body of the municipality.” Utah Code Ann. § 10-3-1203(3)(a) (2003). Both Mayor Larkin and the City Council recruit numerous statutory provisions in aid of their respective claims regarding the proper definition and composition of Holladay City’s governing body. Although each of their respective efforts at statutory interpretation yields plausible results, we conclude that our statutes fall well short of providing clear guidance to municipalities that seek to reconstitute themselves.

¶ 8 This is not our first encounter with a perplexing inconsistency in our laws regulating municipal governance. In Martindale v. Anderson, we confronted the task of identifying the composition of the “governing body” of a municipality that had selected a strong mayor form of government. 581 P.2d 1022 (Utah 1978). There, we expressed the view that “[tjhe inconsistencies in the terminology of the statutes in referring to the approving authority [for the sale of municipal property and approval of subdivisions] is [sic] of some concern.” Id. at 1028. We observed that those inconsistencies had led the district court to “placet ] undue emphasis” on statutory language that defined the city council as the “governing body.” Id. at 1027. Concluding that the district court’s interpretation was too narrow, we looked beyond the language of the statute to the legislative history of municipal government in Utah and determined that under the facts of Martindale, “governing body” should be defined generically, free of any linkage to the functions of any particular governing body. Id. at 1028.

¶ 9 The statutory language relating to the meaning of “governing body” which caused us concern in 1978 confronts us again. As in Martindale, we reject an analysis which turns on a strictly text-based definition of “governing body.” We do so despite the fact that section 10-3-101 attempts to define “governing body” by stating that “[e]ach municipality shall have a governing body which shall exercise the legislative and executive powers of the municipality unless the municipality is organized with separate executive and legislative branches of municipal government.” Utah Code Ann. § 10-3-101 (2003). This attempted definition provides no guidance as to the composition of the governing body of Holladay City, a municipality that adopted the council-mayor form and thus had separate executive and legislative branches.

¶ 10 Because our quest to discover the legislature’s intent regarding the allocation of power when adopting a resolution to change the form of government is obstructed by this unclear statutory framework, we shift our focus from the statutory text to an examination of the evolution of our law relating to the organization of municipal government. State v. Ostler, 2001 UT 68, ¶9, 31 P.3d 528.

¶ 11 Before 1959, the legislative and executive branches of a city were unified in one entity designated as either a commission or a council, depending on the classification of the city. Utah Code Ann. §§ 10-6-1 to -3 (1953) (amended 1959). Under either statutory designation, municipal officers were “the legislative and governing bodies of such cities and towns.” Id. § 10-6-5. The mayor was allowed to vote on all issues but expressly had no veto power. Id. § 10-6-13. No municipality was permitted to have a form of government with separate executive and legislative branches. Id. §§ 10-6-1 to -3. Under the then-existing framework, the term “governing body” served as a useful collective reference to the two types of unified municipal governmental forms — commission and council — but had no substantive significance, so there was no reason to define the term.

¶ 12 In 1959, the legislature enacted the Strong Mayor Form of Government Act, which granted first and second class cities the option of adopting a form of municipal government with separate, independent legislative and executive branches modeled on the separation of powers structure of state and federal government. 1959 Utah Laws ch. 20, § 4; Biddle v. Wash. Terrace City, 1999 UT 110, ¶ 11, 993 P.2d 875. Although the Strong Mayor Act introduced separation of powers to Utah’s municipalities, it did not attempt to redefine “governing body” to accommodate this development. “Governing body” thus retained its descriptive and generic meaning after the adoption of the Strong Mayor Act.

¶ 13 The procedure adopted by the Strong Mayor Act to replace the traditional unified form of municipal government with the separation of powers model was similar to that now in place. Of particular significance, both the Strong Mayor Act and the current law provide that reorganization shall be commenced by resolution “passed by the governing body.” Utah Code Ann. § 10-6-102 (Supp.1961); id. § 10-3-1203(3)(a) (2003). The legislature’s choice of the term “governing body” in this context was logical and readily understandable. Prior to the enactment of the Strong Mayor Act, all municipalities were organized with a unified governmental structure which, although designated by various titles, constituted a “governing body.” See Utah Code Ann. §§ 10-6-1 to -5 (1953). The Strong Mayor Act assumed that only municipalities with generic, unified governing bodies would choose to change their governmental form. There was, therefore, no reason to modify the reorganization procedure to accommodate the desires of municipalities which had adopted the Strong Mayor form and later wished to abandon that governmental form and return to the unified form.

¶ 14 In 1975, the legislature enacted the Optional Forms of Municipal Government Act to replace the Strong Mayor Act. Utah Code Ann. §§ 10-6-103 to -132 (Supp.1975). This Act, firmly grounded in the principle of separation of powers, enabled cities of any population classification to choose between two additional forms of government: the council-manager and the mayor-council forms. Id. §§ 10-6-105, -112; see also Biddle, 1999 UT 110 at ¶ 12, 993 P.2d 875.

¶ 15 Here, for the first time, the legislature defined “governing body” by stating that “ ‘[gjoverning body’ means the legislative body of any city or town organized under this act.” Utah Code Ann. § 10-6-104 (Supp. 1975). This provision was supplemented by section 10-6-113, which states: “The municipal council of a municipality adopting ’ an optional form of government provided for in this act shall be the governing body of that municipality and shall pass ordinances, appropriate funds, review municipal administration, and perform all duties that may be required of them by law.” Furthermore, the legislature left intact the 1959 Strong Mayor Act’s procedure for commencing governmental reorganization by a resolution passed by the governing body — there, the city council. Utah Code Ann. § 10-6-106 (Supp.1975).

¶ 16 In 1977, the legislature repealed and recodified the Optional Forms Act as Utah Code sections 10-3-1201 to -1228. See Utah Code Ann. §§ 10-1-101, -114 (1977). This Act also amended the definition of “governing body” to that which confounded us in Martindale and perplexes us again today. Id. § 10-1-104(2). In Martindale, we traced the reformulation of the term “governing body” and concluded that it reflected the legislature’s “effort to clarify its intent to continue the strong mayor concept of complete separation of executive and legislative powers.” 581 P.2d at 1026. By narrowly focusing its attention on the principle of separation of powers, the legislature left outside its field of vision the need to harmonize considerations of “governing body” with governmental reorganization procedures.

¶ 17 The analytical difficulties caused by the absence of statutory guidance on the composition of the “governing body” in the council-mayor form are compounded by ambiguity over how, if at all, Mayor Larkin would participate in the process of “passing” a reorganization resolution. Under the Optional Forms Act, mayors have the authority to “disapprove” any ordinances passed by the council, subject to a two-thirds override vote by that body. Utah Code Ann. § 10-3-1214 (2003). However, the statutory procedure for adopting municipal ordinances in the mayor-council form is an inapt model for “passing” a reorganization resolution because municipal ordinances are an entirely different statutory species than resolutions. Compare id. §§ 10-3-701 to -716 (statutes governing ordinances) with §§ 10-3-717 to -719 (statutes governing resolutions). None of the general statutory provisions which address the lawful scope of municipal ordinances, resolutions, or the procedure for their enactment provide guidance to a municipality desiring to alter its form of government. Rather, a resolution to hold an election to reorganize municipal government as described in section 10-3-1202 is a unique exercise of governmental authority. Unfortunately, the companion statutory provisions to section 10-3-1202 offer insufficient direction for the proper use of that authority.

¶ 18 Having determined that no meaning of “passed by the governing body” can be gleaned from the text of the Optional Forms Act that will remain true to the purpose and intent of the Act, we conclude that it is impossible to reach a rational statutory reconciliation of the governmental reorganization procedures with the council-mayor form of government. In matters of statutory interpretation where the statutes in question are not clear, we turn to the structure of our governmental institutions. Clover v. Snowbird Ski Resort, 808 P.2d 1037, 1045 (Utah 1991).

¶ 19 Under the federal and state systems after which the council-mayor form of municipal government is modeled, fundamental changes to the structure of government are accomplished by constitutional amendment. The procedures set out in article V of the Constitution of the United States and in article XXIII of the Utah Constitution vest the power to amend these charters in the legislative branch and in the people. No role is assigned to the executive branch. This allocation of power to alter the most basic expression of our commitment to ordered society is clearly expressed in our state constitution, which declares that “[a]ll political power is inherent in the people ... and they have the right to alter or reform their government as the public welfare may require.” Utah Const, art. I, § 2.

¶ 20 Constitutional amendments are legislative in nature and it is, therefore, appropriate that the power of the people to initiate amendments be shared with their elected representatives. No claim to participation in the amendment process can be made by the executive branch in our federal or state system of government. Thus, the fact that the legislature modeled its separation of powers scheme for municipal government on our federal and state systems persuades us that it intended to limit participation in the municipal government reorganization process to the legislative branch and the people, not the mayor.

¶ 21 Mayor Larkin argues that comparing the procedure for passing a reorganization resolution to that of amending the constitution ignores the fact that a two-thirds affirmative vote by Congress or the legislature is required to advance a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution or Utah Constitution, respectively, whereas the Holla-day City reorganization resolution passed by a simple majority. However, this difference causes us no concern as Resolution 03-34 merely initiated an election, leaving the ultimate decision to change Holladay City’s government to the electorate. Had the adoption of the resolution itself altered the form of Holladay City’s government, we would share the Mayor’s concern that a simple majority did not express sufficient will to bring about fundamental institutional change. Thus, we find no need to impose this requirement on a city council that wishes to pass a resolution allowing the electorate to vote on an issue.

¶22 Finally, we note that although the resolution passed by a vote of 3-2 and Mayor Larkin had no authority to formally disapprove the enactment of the resolution, the Mayor was nevertheless afforded ample opportunity to present his views on the resolution to the City Council and to persuade a majority of that body that the resolution was misguided and should be defeated.

II. CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ELECTION STATUTES

¶23 We next turn to the Mayor’s facial challenge to Utah Code section 20A-5-101, the “Election Notices and Instructions” section of the general election code. See Utah Code Ann. § 20A-5-101 (2003). Mayor Larkin alleges that this statute is unconstitutional because it fails to provide proper notice to voters, thus infringing on their fundamental right to vote in an educated manner. Mayor Larkin also argues that this statute is unconstitutional because it does not provide sufficient notice to voters who may wish to cast an absentee ballot.

¶ 24 The statute which governs the alteration of a municipal form of government does not provide for a particular process to notify voters of a reorganization election. See id. § 10-3-1203 (2003). In the absence of specific guidelines, any election, including the reorganization election at issue here, is governed by section 20A-5-101, the “Election Notices and Instructions” section of the general election code. The election code states that “[t]o provide the [required] notice ... the election officer shall publish [a] notice at least two days before the election in a newspaper of general circulation common to the area or in which the election is being held.” Id. § 20A-5-101(4). Mayor Larkin argues that two days is insufficient to properly educate the voters as to the issues in the election. He argues that the likelihood of an uninformed electorate caused by the abbreviated notice amounts to an infringement on the electorate’s fundamental right to vote. This right to vote is simply stated: “Every citizen of the United States, eighteen years of age or over, who makes proper proof of residence in this state for thirty days next preceding any election, or such other period as required by law, shall be entitled to vote in the election.” Utah Const, art. IV, § 2.

¶ 25 While we recognize that the right to vote is indeed fundamental, and that some notice must be provided to the voters, we long ago stated:

The Constitution makes no provision respecting the kind of notice to be given of elections. The matter of notice is peculiarly within legislative discretion, subject only to the limitation that the notice provided shall not be so unreasonably insufficient as to do violence to the requirement of due process. Notice has been provided by the act by publication of such notice in a newspaper of general circulation printed and published in [the affected geographic area].

Lehi City v. Meiling, 87 Utah 237, 48 P.2d 530, 537 (1935). The same is true of the election here. The legislature has provided that two days’ notice is sufficient, and we decline to hold that its judgment on this matter compromises the constitutionally protected right to vote.

¶ 26 The circumstances surrounding Holla-day City’s reorganization election do not cause us to question the sufficiency of the statutory notice requirement. We noted in Meiling that “[a]s a practical matter the notice of election will undoubtedly be given wide publicity in order that the people entitled to vote will have opportunity to voice their approval or disapproval of the proposed organization.” Id. Although voter participation in an election may not directly correlate with an educated electorate, it certainly suggests an interested one. In Holladay City, interest was high. Voter turnout in the 2001 general election that elected Mayor Larkin was 44.45 percent. Voter turnout in the 2003 reorganization election was 44.00 percent, indicating that notice of the election in fact reached a substantial portion of the electorate.

¶ 27 We further conclude that May- or Larkin lacks standing to challenge the election on the grounds that absentee voters had inadequate notice. Our law on standing requires that a

[plaintiff must be able to show that he has suffered some distinct and palpable injury that gives him a personal stake in the outcome of the legal dispute. It is generally insufficient for a plaintiff to assert only a general interest he shares in common with members of the public at large. We will not entertain generalized grievances that are more appropriately directed to the legislative and executive branches of the state government.

Jenkins v. Swan, 675 P.2d 1145, 1148-49 (Utah 1983) (citations omitted). In this case, Mayor Larkin has failed to present sufficient evidence of injury which could be traced to the rules regarding absentee ballots and the general election code.

¶ 28 Finally, we note that the May- or’s argument that an initiative would have been a more appropriate way to address the question of a change in form of government is moot. Regardless of our views on the relative merits of undertaking governmental reorganization by resolution or initiative, or our concerns about statutory shortcomings in the resolution process, we are unwilling to reject the clearly expressed statutory right to commence municipal government reorganization by resolution.

¶29 Because the Holladay City Council properly enacted Resolution No. 03-34 and conducted a reorganization election that met all statutory and constitutional requirements, we affirm the ruling of the district court.

¶ 30 Chief Justice DURHAM, Associate Chief Justice DURRANT, Justice WILKINS, and Justice PARRISH concur in Justice NEHRING’s opinion.

      . The district court granted intervention to two citizens’ groups, Holladay Preservation League and Holladay Citizens for Progress.

      . The statutory authority to reorganize municipal government is found in the Optional Forms of Municipal Government Act, which states:
      (1) A municipality may reorganize under any form of municipal government provided for in this part or under Section 10-3-103, 10 — 3— 104, 10-3-105, or 10-3-106, regardless of the city’s class under Section 10-2-301.
      (2) Reorganization under Subsection (1) shall be by approval of a majority of registered voters of the municipality voting in a special election held for that purpose.
      (3)(a) The proposal may be entered on the ballot by resolution passed by the governing body of the municipality or by initiative as provided for in Title 20A, Chapter 7, Part 5, Local Initiatives — Procedures.
      (b) The resolution or petition shall state the number, method of election, and initial terms of council members and shall specify the boundaries of districts substantially equal in population if some or all council members are to be chosen from these districts.
      (4)(a) The proposal shall be voted upon at a special election to be held not more than twelve months after the resolution is passed or after receipt of a valid initiative petition.
      (b) The special election shall be held at least 90 days before or after regular municipal elections.
      (c) The ballot for the special election to adopt or reject one of the forms of municipal government shall be in substantially the following form:
      Shall (name of municipality), Utah, Yes adopt the (council-mayor)
      (council-manager) (five-member commission) (three-member commission) (six-member council) (five-member council) form of municipal government? No
      Utah Code Ann. § 10-3-1203 (2003).

      . Towns were governed by a board of trustees consisting of a president and four trustees, elected at large. Utah Code Ann. § 10-6-4 (1953).

      . Cities were divided into only three classifications: first, second, and third, depending on the number of inhabitants. Id. § 10-1-1. All municipalities smaller than a third class city were deemed towns. Id. The governments of first, second, and third class cities were each prescribed by sections 10-6-1, -2, and -3, respectively, as comprising a mayor and either a board of commissioners or a city council.

      . Codified as Utah Code Ann. § 10-6-79 (Supp. 1961) (repealed 1975).


author: WILKINS, Justice:

text:
    2004 UT 27
    Linda HAYMOND and Melanie A. Lloyd, for themselves and for all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. BONNEVILLE BILLING & COLLECTIONS, INC., a Utah corporation; Ted K. Godfrey; David Toller; and John Does 1 through 10, Defendants and Appellees.
    No. 20020531.
    Supreme Court of Utah.
    March 30, 2004.

      Lester A. Perry, Salt Lake City, for plaintiffs.
    Andrew M. Morse, D. Jason Hawkins, Rebecca L. Hill, Salt Lake City, for defendants.
   WILKINS, Justice:

¶ 1 Plaintiffs Linda Haymond and Melanie A. Lloyd appeal the trial court’s dismissal of their lawsuit against the defendants. The trial court dismissed the case because it concluded that neither Haymond nor Lloyd had standing to sue. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

¶ 2 Haymond and Lloyd both issued checks to merchants that were dishonored for insufficient funds and assigned to defendant Bonneville Billing & Collections, Inc. (“Bonneville”) for collection. In both cases, Bonneville employed defendant Ted K. God-frey, an attorney, to pursue collection. Both Haymond and Lloyd were subsequently sued by Bonneville for collection of their respective debts. Lloyd, who was unrepresented by counsel, ultimately settled her case with Bonneville by paying $200.20, with $150 of the settlement allocated for attorney fees. During the proceedings against her, Hay-mond retained Lester Perry, an attorney, to represent her in Bonneville’s suit. Before hiring Perry, Haymond paid $28 directly to the merchant, representing the amount of the check, some interest, and a $20 fee. Haymond paid nothing further to Bonneville after hiring Perry. Indeed, Bonneville dismissed its suit over Haymond’s objection.

¶ 3 After settling their cases with Bonneville, Haymond and Lloyd, through attorney Perry, filed the suit now before the court. Their complaint outlines some twenty-two causes of action against Bonneville, its principal, David Toller, and its primary attorney,' Godfrey. The causes of action all center on allegations that Bonneville and Godfrey engage in illegal splitting of attorney fees and illegal collection of treble damages. With regard to the fee-splitting allegations, Hay-mond and Lloyd complain that, although Godfrey retains attorney fees granted in cases brought on Bonneville’s behalf, he is essentially splitting fees with Bonneville by paying an inordinately high fee for use of Bonneville’s computer system. Additionally, Haymond and Lloyd allege that Bonneville is illegally retaining for itself treble damage awards to which merchants, not collection agencies, are entitled.

¶ 4 Bonneville, Toller, and Godfrey moved to dismiss the suit for lack of standing. After oral argument on the motions, the trial court dismissed all claims, finding that there was no private right of action for the violations alleged. Haymond and Lloyd now appeal, arguing that they do have standing and that a denial of standing would violate their rights to due process and to petition the courts for redress under the Utah Constitution.

ANALYSIS

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 5 Standing issues are issues of law reviewed for correctness. Kearns-Tribune Corp. v. Wilkinson, 946 P.2d 372, 373-74 (Utah 1997). However, for purposes of evaluating a motion to dismiss, the facts alleged in the complaint are to be considered as true, with any inferences drawn in favor of the plaintiffs’ claims. Whipple v. Am. Fork Irrigation Co., 910 P.2d 1218, 1219 (Utah 1996).

II. STANDING

¶ 6 “As a general rule, a person can sustain a cause of action only where he has sustained some injury to his legal personal or property rights, the injury and the cause of action being contemporaneous.” 1A C.J.S. Actions § 32a (1985); Jenkins v. Swan, 675 P.2d 1145, 1148 (Utah 1983). In matters of great public importance, we have employed other tests to evaluate whether a plaintiff should be allowed to pursue a lawsuit where he has sustained no injury. Standing may be found if the matter is of great public importance, if the plaintiff, although lacking a distinct injury is in as good a position to challenge the alleged illegality as any other potential plaintiff, and if the issue is unlikely to ever be raised if the plaintiff is denied standing to sue. Jenkins, 675 P.2d at 1150. Neither Haymond nor Lloyd has suffered legal injuries sufficient to give them a cause of action against the defendants under either the traditional or the public interest standing test.

A. Traditional Standing

¶ 7 Haymond identifies as her injury the “expenses, lost time, aggravation and distress in defending against [Bonneville’s collection] attempts.” Given that Haymond paid no attorney fees or treble damages, these supposed injuries are insufficient to confer standing. The inconveniences Hay-mond cites are largely self-inflicted; they are the result of drafting an instrument without sufficient funds in her account to pay the payee. None of the defendants’ conduct in Bonneville’s lawsuit against Haymond caused a distinct and palpable injury, and she has no standing.

¶8 Likewise, Lloyd has suffered no injury sufficient to confer standing. Bonneville never sought to collect treble damages in Lloyd’s case, so she has no standing to challenge Bonneville’s alleged illegal collection of treble damages. Lloyd did pay $150 in attorney fees as part of her settlement. However, Lloyd agreed to that settlement without reservation. She cannot now complain that Bonneville injured her by her settlement.

¶ 9 Even assuming she paid attorney fees that were split inappropriately, Lloyd would have no legal injury. State law provides that one who sues to collect on a dishonored check may collect reasonable attorney fees from the issuer. Utah Code Ann. § 7-15-l(7)(b)(v) (Supp.2003). The Utah Rules of Judicial Administration provide a schedule for payment of attorney fees in matters where fees are allowed by statute. Utah R. Judicial Admin. 4-505.01. For check amounts under $700, the rule provides that $150 is a reasonable amount for attorney fees. Id. Thus, Lloyd was responsible for at least that amount of fees, and any external illegality is irrelevant to her. Having suffered no legal injury, Lloyd has no standing under the traditional standing test.

B. Public Interest Standing

¶ 10 Plaintiffs have also failed to show that they should be granted standing under our public interest test. Specifically, Hay-mond and Lloyd are not the best-suited parties to challenge the alleged illegalities. As for the collection of treble damages, the merchants who are entitled to recover any treble damages collected from issuers of bad checks are in a better position than Haymond or Lloyd. Utah Code Ann. § 7 — 15—1 (7)(b)(vi), (e). Regarding any illegal fee-splitting, the Utah State Bar’s Office of Professional Conduct is much better-suited to challenge and remedy any existing problems with Bonneville’s and Godfrey’s practices. Assuming for the sake of argument that plaintiffs’ allegations are true, we expect that the existence of parties better-suited to challenge the defendants’ alleged misconduct will allow resolution of any important public issues. Consequently, Haymond and Lloyd have no standing to sue.

III. CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES

¶ 11 Constitutional issues may not generally be raised for the first time on appeal. Monson v. Carver, 928 P.2d 1017, 1022 (Utah 1996). The constitutional arguments raised in this appeal were not raised before the trial court and we will not consider them now. Haymond and Lloyd argue that application of the traditional standing-test involves reference to the Due Process and Open Courts Clauses of the Utah Constitution for determination of what interests must be injured to confer standing. However, in the court below, Haymond and Lloyd made no reference to either of these provisions. Because standing may be conferred in numerous ways, a party cannot assume that any pertinent constitutional issues are automatically raised because standing is addressed. Therefore, the absence of argument below concerning article I, sections 7 and 11 of the Utah Constitution renders those arguments unavailable on appeal.

CONCLUSION

¶ 12 Neither Haymond nor Lloyd has suffered a legal injury sufficient to give them a cause of action. The practices they complain of, even if true, caused no legal injury to either plaintiff. Additionally, because there are more suitable plaintiffs than Haymond and Lloyd, standing need not be granted to allow resolution of these issues. Affirmed.

¶ 13 Chief Justice DURHAM, Associate Chief Justice DURRANT, Justice PARRISH, and Justice NEHRING concur in Justice WILKINS’ opinion.

      . We note that illegal fee-splitting would be a serious breach of professional ethics for an attorney. However, we rely on the Office of Professional Conduct for investigation of professional misconduct. If deemed necessary, this court will address more explicit rules governing the payment and allocation of attorney fees.