State ex rel. Town of White Bear v. City of White Bear Lake

• Decision Date: 06 March 1959
• Docket Number: Nos. 37544,37545,s. 37544
• Citation: 95 N.W.2d 294,255 Minn. 28
• Parties: STATE of Minnesota ex rel. TOWN OF WHITE BEAR and J. H. Howe, and Henry L. Hoffman, Respondents, v. CITY OF WHITE BEAR LAKE et al., Appellants.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 294

95 N.W.2d 294

255 Minn. 28

STATE of Minnesota ex rel. TOWN OF WHITE BEAR and J. H Howe, and Henry L. Hoffman, Respondents, v. CITY OF WHITE BEAR LAKE et al., Appellants.

Nos. 37544, 37545.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

March 6, 1959.

Syllabus by the Court

1. The 2-year ban of M.S.A. § 413.12, subd. 5, upon the entertainment of a subsequent annexation petition does not apply if the boundaries of an area once rejected for annexation by the voters are in such subsequent proceeding so materially changed as to present to the voters a substantially different territory for annexation.

2. The evidentiary factors indicative of a proper conditioning of a territory for original incorporation or annexation in a distinctly rural or mining section of the state may have little or no significance in a metropolitan area.

3. The test as to whether an annexation territory as a whole is so conditioned as properly to be subjected to city government embraces three basic essentials; namely, (1) that the platted portion of the lands contains a compact center or nucleus of population, (2) that the adjacent unplatted lands are suburban in character, and (3) that the unplatted lands have with the platted portions of the annexing city a unity of interest in the maintenance of a city government.

4. The first essential, that of containing a compact center or nucleus of population, may be supplied by the annexing village or city.

5. Land which is in the process of being presently, or in the reasonably foreseeable future, overflowed with the expanding population of nearby urban areas, as indicated by the existence of a more or less scattered development of small tracts and homes primarily used or intended for residential living, as distinguished from dwellings which are primarily accessory to the operation of bona fide farms, is suburban.

6. After an election has been held, the statutory regulations are generally construed as directory and such rule of construction is in accord with the policy of this state, which from its beginning has been that, in the absence of fraud or bad faith or constitutional violation, an election which has resulted in a fair and free expression of the will of the legal voters upon the merits will not be invalidated because of a departure from the statutory regulations governing the conduct of the election except in those cases where the legislature has clearly and unequivocally expressed an intent that a specific statutory provision is an essential jurisdictional prerequisite and that a departure therefrom shall have the drastic consequence of invalidity.

7. Irregularities in the conduct of an election to annex land to a city, in the absence of a showing that they prevented a free expression of the voters on the merits, will not invalidate the election.

8. The distance requirement of § 413.12, subd. 1, that no part of the territory to be annexed shall be more than one and one-half miles from the present limits of the city, is to be measured as the crow flies and it is immaterial that the line of measurement may pass over territory not included in the annexation.

Edward G. Springer, St. Paul, William J. Fleming, White Bear Lake, for appellants.

Robert F. Wille, Paul C. Thomas, Francis D. Butler, St. Paul, Wille & Wille, Thomas, Bradford, King & Collatz, Doherty, Rumble & Butler, and Henry Flasch, St. Paul, of counsel, for respondents.

MATSON, Justice.

Appeal from an order denying a new trial in each of two district court quo warranto proceedings wherein the court held invalid the attempted annexation to the city of White Bear Lake of certain portions of White Bear Township and ordered a writ of ouster to issue.

The two quo warranto proceedings, both involving the same issues, were consolidated for trial and for review upon this appeal.

These issues arise: (1) Whether either or both attempted annexations are invalid upon the ground that the initiating petitions were entertained by the governing body of the city of White Bear Lake within the 2 years following a prior annexation election at which the majority of votes were cast in the negative; (2) whether the annexed territory, which is located in a metropolitan area, is so conditioned as to be subject for annexation to the city of White Bear Lake; (3) whether a failure to verify one of the petitions, as required by statute, renders the annexation void; and (4) whether any part of the annexed land is 'more than one and one half miles from the present limits of the city' contrary to statutory requirements.

On March 18, 1957, a petition for annexation of approximately 1,240 acres of territory to the city of White Bear Lake, hereafter called the north petition, was executed and filed pursuant to M.S.A. § 413.12. Two days later a second petition, herein referred to as the south petition, involving about 2,186 acres was executed and filed. The south petition was not verified by the oaths of at least three of the petitioners as required by § 413.12, subd. 2. All territory embraced by each petition was located in the township of White Bear. The governing body of the city of White Bear Lake entertained both petitions at a meeting on March 26, 1957, and fixed April 13, 1957, as the date of elections. The majority of the votes in each proceeding were cast in favor of annexation. ¹

1. We turn to the first issue as to whether either or both attempted annexations are invalid on the ground that the statutory petitions were entertained by the governing body of the city of White Bear Lake within 2 years following a prior annexation election wherein the majority of votes were cast in the negative. Applicable here is § 413.12, subd. 5, which provides:

'* * * If the certificate shows that the majority of votes cast were in the negative, no subsequent petition shall be entertained within two years next after that election.'

The issue of invalidity under the foregoing section arises from the circumstance that on October 6, 1956--or only about 6 months prior to the entertainment of the petitions herein--an annexation election involving much of the same territory was held and the majority vote was cast in the negative. The trial court, which made separate findings in each of the two proceedings, found that the combined effect of the north and south annexations was substantially similar to what the effect of the 1956 election would have been had a majority voted in favor of annexation and concluded that under § 413.12, subd. 5, both annexations were invalid.

Whether the trial court erred in its findings and conclusions depends upon the construction of § 413.12, subd. 5, as applied to the evidence herein. Obviously in enacting § 413.12, subd. 5, it was not the intent of the legislature to prohibit all annexations for 2 years but only those which involved substantially the same question upon which the voters had cast a negative vote. This conclusion is fortified by the 1949 legislative enactment pursuant to which § 413.12 was amended so as to be left applicable only to cities (L. 1949, c. 119, § 111--now § 412.921) and a new section was enacted to apply only to villages (L. 1949, c. 119, § 7--now § 412.041). The new provision applicable to villages, which corresponds to § 413.12, subd. 5, is § 412.041, subd. 5, which reads:

'* * * If a majority of votes cast is in the negative, no subsequent petition for annexation Of the same area shall be entertained for two years after the election.' (Italics supplied.)

Since the 1949 enactment for village appears to be only a clarification of the language used in § 413.12, subd. 5, it is reasonable to assume that the two sections dealing with the same problem are in pari materia and that § 413.12, subd, 5, is therefore to be construed as if it contained the phrase 'of the same area.'

The obvious legislative purpose in enacting § 413.12, subd. 5, is to protect people In the same area from unreasonably frequent annexation attempts. In short, voters are not to be bothered by substantially the same annexation problem As to area any oftener than once every 2 years. We use the phrase Substantially the same annexation problem as to area advisedly since it would be unreasonable to assume that the legislature intended that the 2-year limitation could be evaded simply by adding to, or subtracting from, the area an acre or two. On the other hand, it would be equally unreasonable to attribute to the legislature an intent to shackle all annexations to the degree that no part of such area could be included in a second subsequent annexation proceeding for 2 years. What the legislature intended lies between these two extremes. The problem of statutory construction raises, therefore, the question as to what change in the boundaries of an area once rejected for annexation will justify, within the statutory 2-year period, the entertainment of a second petition for annexation.

The Texas Court of Civil Appeals, in applying a similar statute, has held that a Material change in the boundaries of an area once rejected for annexation justifies a second annexation proceeding although the statutory period has not expired. ² In view of the remedial purpose of annexation statutes the Material-change rule seems sound if it is understood to require that the annexation area, as changed, will present to the voters a substantially different territory for consideration. We conclude therefore that the 2-year ban of § 413.12, subd. 5, upon the entertainment of a subsequent annexation petition does not apply if the boundaries of an area once rejected for annexation by the voters are in such subsequent proceeding so materially changed as to present to the voters a substantially different territory for annexation. Although a change in the boundaries may not eliminate a substantial overlapping of the old and the new annexation areas, it may nevertheless be sufficiently extensive if the area is substantially modified by the addition of new, or the...