Forest Lawn Co. v. City Council

California Court of Appeal Aug 18, 1966 No. Civ. 28783Published

Before: Shinn

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the superior court properly ordered a new annexation protest hearing to be conducted in accordance with current statutory procedures and the most recent equalized assessment roll, as the prior proceedings were void.

Issues

Whether the superior court exceeded its authority by ordering a new protest hearing rather than merely re-evaluating existing protests.
Whether the 'last equalized assessment roll' refers to the roll current at the time of the hearing or the time proceedings were initiated.
Whether amended statutory procedures for annexation protests apply to a new hearing mandated by a court order.

Disposition. affirmed as modified

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the word “last” should be given its common meaning of “most recent” and we so hold.”

“A hearing being required due process entitles the owners of affected property to notice of the time and place of hearing.”

SHINN, P. J.

This case is before the appellate courts for the second time. The ease involves the validity of the proceedings commenced by the city council to annex to the City of West Covina 114 acres of land contiguous thereto.

The appeal involves the interpretation of the opinion of the Supreme Court (60 Cal.2d 516) holding those proceedings invalid in certain particulars and the correctness of the action taken by the superior court in response to the remittitur.

The facts so far as pertinent to this appeal, as stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court are; “On December 29, 1960, the City Council . . . , by Resolution 1997, began proceedings ... to annex 114 acres of uninhabited land contiguous to the city’s boundaries. . . . Pursuant to Government Code section 35313 the city council held a hearing to determine protests to the proposed annexation. On February 14, 1961, the council adopted a second resolution (No. 2034) substantially the same as Resolution 1997, referring to the same land. On April 10, 1961, it held a protest hearing pursuant to Resolution 2034.

“The 114 acres of uninhabited territory to be annexed consisted of five separate parcels, four of which were residential lots owned by persons other than plaintiff; these four lots comprised 14 of the 114 acres. The remaining 100 acres composed a part of an undivided 1,050-acre parcel owned by plaintiff. According to the last equalized assessment roll, the total assessed value of the four residential parcels was $48,360. The assessed value of plaintiff’s entire 1,050 acres totalled $138,010, including $3,010 . . . for improvements located on the 100-acre portion to be annexed. ...” [The 100 acres were not separately assessed.]

“Prior to the hearings plaintiff filed a written protest . . . ; the other owners did not protest. At the protest hearings the city council determined that owners of one-half of the value of the territory to be annexed had not protested. . . . In so doing the council postulated that it had the power, ... to apportion the assessed value of the 1,050-acre parcel between the portion of the parcel included in the proposed annexation and the portion excluded.

“Plaintiff sought mandamus in the superior court. The court held that the city council exceeded its statutory power in apportioning the assessed valuation of the 1,050-acre parcel.

[346]

Forest Lawn Co. v. City Council

AI Brief

SHINN, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief