City of San Pablo v. City of Richmond
| Decision Date | 08 February 1957 |
| Citation | 148 Cal.App.2d 358,306 P.2d 949 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | CITY OF SAN PABLO, a municipal corporation, and Clyde W. Redmon and Alice A. Redmon, Petitioners and Appellants, v. CITY OF RICHMOND, a municipal corporation, Clarence D. Erickson, Robert H. Miller, Daniel M. Bradley, William A. Cannon, John J. Sheridan, Gay G. Vargas, Ed J. J. McKeegan, Carl F. Lyford, and James P. Kenny, Respondents and Respondents. CITY OF SAN PABLO, a municipal corporation, and Clyde W. Redmon and Alice A. Redmon, Petitioners and Appellants, v. CITY OF RICHMOND, a municipal corporation, Clarence D. Erickson, Robert H. Miller, Daniel M. Bradley, William A. Cannon, John J. Sheridan, Gay G. Vargas, Ed J. J. McKeegan, Carl F. Lyford, and James P. Kenny, Respondents and Respondents. COLLEGE HIGHLANDS, Inc., a corporation and City of Richmond, a municipal corporation, Petitioners and Respondents. v. CITY OF SAN PABLO, a municipal corporation, Gertrude Yurko, R. W. Pelletreau, George W. Moitoza, William Zachary, Roy Cleek, and John M. Snider, Respondents and Appellants. Civ. 17181-17183. |
James P. O'Drain, City Atty., City of San Pablo, Richmond, Robert T. Anderson, Berkeley, for appellants.
Thomas M. Carlson, City Atty., City of Richmond, Dana Murdock (special counsel), Richmond, Robert Eshleman, Martinez (of counsel), for respondents.
Lying near to the cities of Richmond and San Pablo is certain uninhabited territory that both cities covet, and each has attempted to annex. Several facets of the controversy have already been before the appellate courts. People ex rel. Pennington v. City of Richmond, 141 Cal.App.2d 107, 296 P.2d 351--the so-called Pennington case; Johnson v. City of San Pablo, 132 Cal.App.2d 447, 283 P.2d 57.
The two cities, proceeding under the Annexation of Uninhabited Territory Act of 1939, Gov.Code, §§ 35300-35326, purported to annex substantially the same territory. Cases numbered 1 Civ. 17,181 and 1 Civ. 17,182 are review and mandate proceedings, respectively, challenging the validity of the Richmond annexation, while case numbered 1 Civ. 17,183 challenges the validity of the San Pablo proceedings. The three cases were consolidated for trial, together with certain other cases not involved on these appeals. The trial court upheld the validity of the Richmond annexation, and held that the San Pablo annexation was invalid, and entered its judgments accordingly. San Pablo appeals.
The legal issue involved can be simply stated: If a city starts an annexation proceeding which is attacked and subsequently held to be invalid, may it validly start a second and proper proceeding to annex the whole or part of the same territory before the judgment is entered declaring the first proceeding to be invalid? In our opinion, it may do so.
The facts may be summarized as follows:
February 16, 1954: Richmond Ordinance 1423 was filed with the Secretary of State, purporting to annex a certain 10 square mile area adjoining that city. On May 10, 1954, the complaint in the Pennington case, supra, was filed, challenging the validity of this annexation.
September 21, 1954: Richmond Ordinance 1448 was filed with the Secretary of State, purporting to annex the DeAnza Vista portion of the above 10 square miles, plus some additional acreage outside the 10 square miles. The proceeding is not directly, but is indirectly, challenged on these appeals.
January 13, 1955: Judgment was announced adverse to Richmond in the Pennington case, and a restraining order issued on January 31, 1955. The trial court ruled that Richmond's purported annexation of the 10 square miles was void and invalid.
February 1, 1955: Richmond adopted Resolution 5923, initiating the Richmond-Fairmede annexation proceedings which included territory almost entirely within the 10 square miles involved in the earlier annexation. This proceeding was attacked by the city of San Pablo and in I Civ. 17,181 and 1 Civ. 17,182 held to be valid.
February 2, 1955: Judgment was entered against Richmond in the Pennington case.
February 15, 1955: San Pablo adopted Resolution 832, which initiated its San Pablo-Fairmede annexation. The area involved also included territory within the above mentioned 10 square miles. These proceedings were attacked by Richmond and judgment was entered for Richmond. San Pablo appeals. (Number 1 Civ. 17,183.)
March 25, 1955: On Richmond's motion for new trial, the court modified certain of its findings and conclusions of law in the Pennington case. The new judgment was entered March 29, 1955. This was affirmed by this court in People ex rel. Pennington v. City of Richmond, 141 Cal.App.2d 107, 296 P.2d 351, 360.
The basic argument of San Pablo is that Richmond had no legal authority to initiate the Richmond-Fairmede annexation on February 1, 1955, because on that date the area involved was already legally annexed to Richmond. Based on this premise, it is argued that the Richmond-Fairmede annexation was fraudulent as a matter of law, and that the San Pablo-Fairmede annexation was valid because commenced subsequent to the entry of judgment in the Pennington case (although before the entry of the modification in that case). It is also argued, for the same reasons, that the Richmond-DeAnza Vista annexation was invalid and that this invalidity results in the invalidity of the Richmond-Fairmede annexation because without the DeAnza annexation the Fairmede area is not contiguous to Richmond as required by statute. The argument of San Pablo is that the validity of the Richmond-Fairmede annexation must be tested by the facts existing on the date of its commencement, that is, February 1, 1955; that a judgment is not effective until entered, and, therefore, the annexation declared invalid in the Pennington case which 'voided and annulled' that annexation was effective until February 2, 1955; that until February 2nd the annexation involved in the Pennington case was effective so that the area included in the Richmond-Fairmede annexation was already legally annexed to Richmond. A city cannot, of course, annex territory already within its corporate limits.
The trial court declared in the Pennington case that the annexation there involved was 'null and void.' This was affirmed by this court. We held that because of certain facts existing when the annexation proceeding was instituted, Richmond was without 'jurisdiction' to proceed. In the course of our opinion we amended two paragraphs of the judgment to read as follows, 141 Cal.App.2d 107, at page 120, 296 P.2d at page 359:
'It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed that the proceedings hereby voided and annulled did not cause said territory to be legally annexed nor to become a part of the City of Richmond.
'It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed that the City of Richmond shall not, based upon the annexation proceedings hereby voided and annulled exercise (1) the franchise of municipal government in or over said territory or (2) any jurisdiction or dominion therein or thereover.'
Thus, although the annexation proceedings involved in the Pennington case were declared null and void because Richmond from the inception of the proceedings lacked 'jurisdiction' to proceed, San Pablo insists such annexation was legally effective until declared to be invalid on February 2, 1955, by the entry of judgment.
Generally speaking, an act that is 'null and void' is so from the very beginning, and legal rights cannot be predicated upon it. If a judicial, legislative, executive, or administrative body proceeds without 'jurisdiction,' its...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Pleasanton v. Bryant
...Cal.Rptr. 525; City of Costa Mesa v. City Newport Beach, supra, 165 Cal.App.2d 553, 559, 332 P.2d 392; City of San Pablo v. City of Richmond, supra, 148 Cal.App.2d 358, 361, 306 P.2d 949; Hubbell v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 142 Cal.App.2d 1, 6, 297 P.2d 724; People ex rel. Rorde v. Town ......
-
People ex rel. City of Downey v. Downey County Water Dist.
...of annexation on May 19, 1959, was invalid and of no effect and no legal rights may be predicated thereon. (City of San Pablo v. City of Richmond, 148 Cal.App.2d 358, 306 P.2d 949.) Void from its inception, neither the within action nor any subsequent act of the city or the district vitaliz......
-
Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Board of Sup'rs of Los Angeles County
...of the trial court is correct, then the original proceedings were no bar to the second. City of San Pablo v. City of Richmond, 148 Cal.App.2d 358, at pages 361-362, 306 P.2d 949, at pages 951-952. The appellants by initiating the second proceedings did not concede the invalidity of the firs......
-
City of Cupertino v. City of San Jose
...generally ineffectual for all purposes, it does not bar a second proceeding by the same annexing city (City of San Pablo v. City of Richmond, 148 Cal.App.2d 358, 361, 306 P.2d 949, 951). Under these circumstances, we hold that the Stelling No. 1 proceeding was void because commenced during ......