Fitzke v. City of Hastings, S-96-787

• Decision Date: 17 July 1998
• Docket Number: No. S-96-787,S-96-787
• Citation: 255 Neb. 46,582 N.W.2d 301
• Parties: Ronald R. FITZKE and Delores Fitzke, husband and wife, Appellees, v. CITY OF HASTINGS, Nebraska, a municipal corporation, and Community Redevelopment Authority of the City of Hastings, Nebraska, Appellants, and Elmer Hohlen and Colleen Hohlen, husband and wife, and Marc Hultine, Appellees.
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

Page 301

582 N.W.2d 301

255 Neb. 46

Ronald R. FITZKE and Delores Fitzke, husband and wife, Appellees, v. CITY OF HASTINGS, Nebraska, a municipal corporation, and Community Redevelopment Authority of the City of Hastings, Nebraska, Appellants and Elmer Hohlen and Colleen Hohlen, husband and wife, and Marc Hultine, Appellees.

No. S-96-787.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

July 17, 1998.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Actions: Judgments: Final Orders: Appeal and Error. Where multiple causes of action are alleged, an entry of judgment on one cause of action is a final, appealable order with respect to that cause of action, despite the pendency of other causes of action in the same suit.

2. Actions: Words and Phrases. A cause of action consists of the fact or facts which give one a right to judicial relief against another; a theory of recovery is not itself a cause of action.

3. Actions. Whether more than one cause of action is stated depends mainly upon whether more than one primary right or subject of controversy is presented and also upon whether recovery on one ground would bar recovery on the other, whether the same evidence would support the different counts, and whether separate actions could be maintained for separate relief.

4. Actions: Parties: Standing. Before a party is entitled to invoke a court's jurisdiction, that party must have standing to sue, which involves having some real interest in the cause of action; in other words, to have standing to sue, a plaintiff must have some legal or equitable right, title, or interest in the subject matter of the controversy.

5. Actions: Equity: Taxation: Municipal Corporations. A taxpayer, for the benefit of a municipal or public corporation, may commence and prosecute to judgment an equitable action to enforce a right of action which the governing body has refused to enforce.

6. Actions: Equity: Taxation: Municipal Corporations. A resident taxpayer may invoke the interposition of a court of equity to prevent the illegal disposition of money of a municipal corporation or the illegal creation of a debt which he or she, in common with other property holders, may otherwise be compelled to pay.

7. Actions: Taxation: Injunction. A resident taxpayer, without showing any interest or injury peculiar to itself, may bring an action to enjoin the illegal expenditure of public funds raised for governmental purposes.

8. Actions: Standing: Taxation: Municipal Corporations. To assert standing, a resident taxpayer must allege a demand made upon the municipal or public corporation and a refusal by the corporation to bring 9. Actions: Municipal Corporations: Courts: Appeal and Error. A district court may disturb an action taken by a municipal corporation pursuant to Nebraska's Community Development Law only if the action is illegal or is not supported by the evidence and is thus arbitrary, unreasonable, or clearly wrong. On appeal in such an action, the appellate court must decide if the district court abused its discretion or made an error of law. Where competent evidence supports the district court's findings, the appellate court will not substitute its factual findings for those of the district court.

the action itself, or facts which show that such a demand would be useless.

10. Municipal Corporations. A municipal corporation possesses and can exercise the following powers, and no others: First, those granted in express words; second, those necessarily or fairly implied in or incident to the powers expressly granted; third, those essential to the declared objects and purposes of the corporation--not simply convenient, but indispensable.

11. Statutes: Municipal Corporations. Statutes granting powers to municipalities are to be strictly construed, and where doubt exists such doubt must be resolved against the grant.

12. Statutes: Appeal and Error. Statutory interpretation is a matter of law in connection with which an appellate court has an obligation to reach an independent, correct conclusion irrespective of the determination made by the court below.

13. Statutes: Intent. In construing a statute, a court must look at the statutory objective to be accomplished, the problem to be remedied, or the purpose to be served, and then place on the statute a reasonable construction which best achieves its purpose, rather than a construction defeating the statutory purpose.

14. Statutes: Legislature: Intent: Appeal and Error. In determining the meaning of a statute, an appellate court may conjunctively consider and construe a collection of statutes which pertain to a certain subject matter to determine the intent of the Legislature so that different provisions of the act are consistent, harmonious, and sensible.

15. Municipal Corporations: Statutes: Real Estate. Under Nebraska's Community Development Law, land cannot be added to an existing community redevelopment area unless (1) the additional land is declared blighted or substandard within the meaning of the Community Development Law or (2) the additional land is reasonably necessary to accomplish the implementation of the existing redevelopment plan.

Bradley J. White, of Helmann, Sullivan & White, P.C., Hastings, for appellants.

Arthur R. Langvardt, of Langvardt & Valle, Hastings, for appellees Fitzke.

WHITE, C.J., CAPORALE, WRIGHT, CONNOLLY, GERRARD, STEPHAN, and McCORMACK, JJ.

STEPHAN, Justice.

In this equity action, the City of Hastings, Nebraska (Hastings), and the Community Redevelopment Authority of the City of Hastings (Authority) appeal from a judgment entered by the district court for Adams County declaring certain actions taken by them to be invalid and void under Nebraska's Community Development Law (CDL), Neb.Rev.Stat. § 18-2101 et seq. (Reissue 1991 & Cum.Supp.1994). Hastings and the Authority contend that the court erred in concluding that Ronald R. Fitzke and Delores Fitzke had standing to challenge their actions and that the court also erred in resolving the merits of the controversy. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion or make an error of law and, therefore, affirm the judgment of the district court.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Hastings is a city of the first class located in Adams County, Nebraska. The Fitzkes own and reside on a 5-acre tract of land in Hastings. The Authority is a public corporation formed by Hastings pursuant to the CDL for the purpose of exercising the powers and functions authorized under the statutes. Such powers include the recommendation In March 1993, a consultant retained by the Authority prepared a "Blight and Substandard Determination Study" for an irregular parcel of real estate designated "Hastings Redevelopment Area Number 7" (Area 7) located within Hastings. Pursuant to this study, Hastings declared Area 7 blighted and substandard, as those terms are defined in the CDL, and approved a redevelopment plan for the area. The plan stated that an area in the northernmost portion of Area 7 "should be reserved for future commercial development" but did not list any specific projects.

and implementation of plans to redevelop areas of a city which have been declared blighted or substandard and contracting with public or private entities in order to carry out such redevelopment plans.

In late 1993 or early 1994, Marc Hultine approached Hastings officials regarding his plan to develop a campground on a privately-owned, undeveloped parcel of property in the northern part of Hastings which was being used as a cornfield. The proposed campground site was located east of the northernmost portion of Area 7 and approximately two to three blocks west of the Fitzkes' home. In April 1994, Hastings granted Hultine's request to rezone the proposed campground site and preliminarily approved a conditional use permit to operate the campground.

Resolution No.1994-56 was placed on the agenda for a meeting of the Hastings City Council scheduled for April 25, 1994. The resolution proposed that a 58-acre tract which included the campground site be declared blighted and substandard. In an "Agenda Item Summary Sheet" pertaining to this resolution, the city attorney stated:

The [Authority] has indicated an interest in assisting the developer of a new KOA campground. The campground is near [Area 7], but is not currently within the bounds of that area. In order to amend the plan and include the proposed development, it will be necessary to have the area declared as blighted and substandard.

Before any action was taken on this resolution, the Authority asked the consulting firm which had prepared the 1993 blight and substandard study pertaining to Area 7 to conduct a similar study of an enlarged Area 7, which included all of the land included in the 1993 study plus the 58-acre cornfield on which Hultine proposed to build a campground. The consultant from the firm concluded that the additional land had "characteristics of some blight and substandard factors," but he did not make any independent analysis of whether it was itself blighted or substandard and stated that it was "very much possible" that it was not. The consultant recommended that the additional area be included in Area 7 in order to "create more of an overall redevelopment area for different opportunities for development." A revised redevelopment plan submitted by the consultant in conjunction with his revised blight and substandard study specified that the area added to Area 7 "should be designed for commercial and medium density residential" with open space to "be provided for recreation and to mitigate flood potential." The Hastings City Council passed resolution No.1994-56 on August 22, 1994, determining it to be "in the best interest of the City" to declare the expanded Area 7 as blighted and/or substandard. The Authority adopted the revised redevelopment plan on August 25, and it was approved by the Hastings City Council on October 24.

On November 22, 1994, a public hearing was held on a...