Fay Improvement Co. v. Hanlon

California Supreme Court Jun 3, 1924 No. S. F. No. 10620.Published

Before: Seawell

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a street improvement assessment exceeding fifty percent of a property's assessed value is valid when the municipality provides an alternative installment payment plan under its charter, and that the property owner's failure to utilize the installment procedure renders the full assessment immediately due.

Issues

Whether a street improvement assessment exceeding fifty percent of the property's assessed value is valid under the San Francisco charter.
Whether Section 29 of Ordinance No. 2439 (N. S.) is void for unintelligibility.
Whether the property owner's failure to elect the installment payment option renders the full assessment immediately due.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Section 33 of the charter specifically provides that the general limitation placed upon the amount of the assessment by subdivision 3 of section 8 thereof shall have no application to street improvement assessments wherein provision is made for the payment of the assessment in annual installments.”

“While it may not be structurally or grammatically perfect, there can be no doubt as to its meaning.”

“The procedure providing for the payment of a street assessment which exceeded fifty per cent of the assessed value of the property in installments having been rejected the entire amount became at once due.”

SEAWELL, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment in the plaintiff’s favor in an action to foreclose a lien for street improvement work performed for the benefit of lot number 59, as shown by the assessment and diagram, situate at the southeast corner of Forty-fourth Avenue and Balboa Street, in the city and county of San Francisco, and owned by defendant Charles F. Hanlon. The assessment was made under the procedure provided by Ordinance No. 2439 (N. S.) of the city and county of San Francisco, approved September 4, 1913, under and by virtue of the power given to the supervisors of that municipality by section 33, article VI, chapter 2, of its charter. The Hibernia Savings and. Loan Society, a corporation, alleged to have held a mortgage interest in said lot, filed a dismissal of its appeal, leaving Charles F. Hanlon as the sole appellant.

The street improvement assessment aggregated the sum of $993.13, which is in amount greater than fifty per centum of the value of said lot at which it" was assessed upon the last preceding assessment-book of the city and county -of San Francisco. Subdivision 3 of section 8, of article VI, chapter 2, of the charter of said city and county of San Francisco has, since 1913, provided, and still does provide, that “no assessment shall be levied upon any property, which, together with all assessments’ for street improvements that may have been levied upon the same property during the next year preceding, will amount to a sum greater than fifty per centum of the value at which said property was assessed upon the last preceding assessment-book of the city and county.” Section 38 of the same chapter (Stats. 1913, p. 1623), which was a part of the 1913 charter, provided: “The method of procedure in this article provided for the improvement of streets, . . . and for the assessment of the

[711]

expense thereof or any portion of such expense upon private property shall not he deemed exclusive, but the board of supervisors by an affirmative vote of not less- than two-thirds of the members thereof, may by ordinance substitute therefor any method of procedure in any general law of the State of California now in force and effect, or as the same may be amended or that may hereafter be enacted, providing for such improvements in municipalities, and levying assessments for the expense or portion thereof upon private property; or the said board may, by a like affirmative vote of the members thereof, adopt an ordinance which may from time to time be revised or amended, providing a method of procedure for such improvement and assessment; and in such ordinance if said board deems it expedient, provision may be made for the payment of any assessment levied in pursuance of the provisions thereof in

Fay Improvement Co. v. Hanlon

AI Brief

SEAWELL, J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief