Davis v. Pima County
| Decision Date | 11 October 1978 |
| Docket Number | A,CA-CIV,No. 3,No. 2,Nos. 1094 and 1148,s. 1094 and 1148,3,2 |
| Citation | 121 Ariz. 343,590 P.2d 459 |
| Parties | Grant C. DAVIS and William H. Davis, as Trustees, the Arizona Bank, as Trustee, and Stewart Title and Trust, as Trustee, under Trustsppellants/Cross Appellees, v. PIMA COUNTY, Arizona, a body politic, Joseph Castillo, E. S. "Bud" Walker, Ron Asta, Sam Lena and Conrad Joyner, duly elected Supervisors in and for Pima County, Arizona, Glen Knutson, Pima County Zoning Inspector, Trini Goebel, Cyrus Cook, George Henry, Stanley Krzyzanowski and Charles Camp, members of the Pima County Board of Adjustmentppellees/Cross Appellants. 2783. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
Appellants filed a suit in the superior court alleging that the appellees wrongfully refused to rezone their property and asking for declaratory relief and damages. The trial court invalidated the existing zoning, awarded appellants attorney's fees, but refused to award them any damages.
Appellants claim the trial court erred in disallowing damages. Appellees have cross-appealed contending that the trial court erred in "rezoning" the land and awarding attorney's fees.
What is the proper judicial remedy for the undoing of wrongful legislation? That is the main issue to be decided here. We hold that appellants' sole remedy was the undoing of the legislation and not money damages.
In 1972 the Pima County Board of Supervisors approved appellants' petition to rezone their property upon appellants' compliance with certain conditions. These conditions were performed, but because of complaints from nearby property owners approval of appellants' final plats was delayed until November of 1975. At that time the board refused to approve them despite compliance with all the conditions and even though all concerned directors, department heads and its planning department were of the opinion that the neighbors' complaints were unfounded.
Appellants filed a special action in the superior court which resulted in the court ordering the board to approve the final plats submitted by appellants. No appeal was ever taken from this order. The board approved the final plats but refused to enact an ordinance rezoning the property from GR (general rural) to SH and CR-1. Appellants then applied for building permits under the existing GR zoning which they claimed permitted the construction contemplated by them. The Pima County Zoning Inspector refused to issue permits until the zoning was changed. Appellants then filed this lawsuit. The court made extensive findings of fact. It found that appellants' contemplated use, to-wit, single family residential and mobile home use, is the only use allowable under GR zoning for which the subject property may reasonably be used; that the board's action was arbitrary and capricious and bore no relation to public health, safety and welfare; and that the issue of the rezoning was not fairly debatable. It did not, however, find that the board of supervisors acted in bad faith and specifically rejected appellants' conclusion of law on that issue. Appellants claim damages in the sum of.$67,035 for loss in the property value because of the delay in securing their right to build on the property and the sum of $95,180 for the loss of an aid-in-construction agreement which would have been available had the board changed the zoning after the entry of the order in the special action. Appellant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Heffernan v. Missoula City Council
...to enforce a certain density on Sunlight's lands, as such a promise by the City would be void ab initio. See Davis v. Pima County, 121 Ariz. 343, 590 P.2d 459, 461 (Ariz.App.1978) ( “The power to regulate land use through zoning ordinances is vested in municipal legislatures and they cannot......
-
Eck v. City of Bismarck
...of Inverse Condemnation as a Landowner's Remedy for Downzoning," 13 Urb.L.Ann. 263 (1977).6 For similar results, see Davis v. Pima County, 121 Ariz. 343, 590 P.2d 459 (1978), Cert. denied --- U.S. ----, 99 S.Ct. 2885, 61 L.Ed.2d 312 (1979); Gold Run, Ltd. v. Board of County Commissioners, 3......
-
Corrigan v. City of Scottsdale, 1
...the lowlands.14 On motion, the trial court dismissed the count for money damages on the strength of the holding in Davis v. Pima County, 121 Ariz. 343, 590 P.2d 459 (App.1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 942, 99 S.Ct. 2885, 61 L.Ed.2d 312 (1979). Corrigan asks this court to reverse on the basis......
-
Circle K Corp. v. City of Mesa
...U.S. 470, 107 S.Ct. 1232, 94 L.Ed.2d 472 (1987); Ranch 57 v. City of Yuma, 152 Ariz. 218, 731 P.2d 113 (App.1986); Davis v. Pima County, 121 Ariz. 343, 590 P.2d 459 (App.1978), overruled on other grounds, Corrigan v. City of Scottsdale, 149 Ariz. 538, 543, 720 P.2d 513, 518, cert. denied, 4......