the mootness doctrine as it pertains to land use challenges. For this reason, I decline to adopt CME's reasoning. CONCLUSION 34 CME's claims are now moot because CME does not have a right that will be affected if the district court were to declare Tocele County's decisions unenforceable. CME does not have any potentially affected property rights because CME does not own, nor does CME at this time lease, any property in the vicinity of the corridor. Further, the mootness doctrine prohibits land use challenges from continuing after all of the litigant's relevant property rights have been transferred. For these reasons, I would dismiss this appeal. 4 35 Justice WILKINS concurs in Associate Chief Justice DURRANTS dissenting opinion. 1 . Richards v. Baum, 914 P.2d 719, 720 (Utah 1996) (<HOLDING>). 2 . McRae v. Jackson, 526 P.2d 1190, 1191
holding that an appeal became moot when the party sold the real estate that formed the basis of the claims holding unenforceable a contract for real estate commissions formed by an unlicensed corporation holding that a tax appeal on real property is a lien on the real estate and not a personal obligation of the landowner holding appeal moot on this basis holding that trustee may bring assigned creditor claims where estate is the real party in interest