Weyyakin Ranch Property Owners' Ass'n, Inc. v. City of Ketchum

• Decision Date: 02 June 1995
• Docket Number: No. 20579,20579
• Citation: 127 Idaho 1,896 P.2d 327
• Parties: WEYYAKIN RANCH PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC., an Idaho non-profit corporation, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CITY OF KETCHUM, a municipal corporation, Defendant-Appellant. CITY OF SUN VALLEY, a municipal corporation, Plaintiff-Intervenor-Respondent, v. CITY OF KETCHUM, a municipal corporation, Defendant-Appellant. Twin Falls, March 1995 Term
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

Page 327

896 P.2d 327

127 Idaho 1

WEYYAKIN RANCH PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC., an Idaho non-profit corporation, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CITY OF KETCHUM, a municipal corporation, Defendant-Appellant.

CITY OF SUN VALLEY, a municipal corporation, Plaintiff-Intervenor-Respondent, v. CITY OF KETCHUM, a municipal corporation, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 20579.

Supreme Court of Idaho,

Twin Falls, March 1995 Term.

June 2, 1995.

Hawley Troxell Ennis & Hawley, Ketchum, for appellant.

Rosholt Robertson & Tucker, Twin Falls, for respondent.

Kneeland Korb & Collier, Ketchum, for intervenor-respondent.

Before McDEVITT, C.J., JOHNSON, TROUT and SCHROEDER, JJ. and TRANSTRUM, J. (Pro Tem.)

ON THE BRIEFS

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a finding of contempt and a subsequent order requiring the city council and mayor of Ketchum (Ketchum elected officials) to pay the attorney fees and costs of the Weyyakin Ranch Property Owners' Association (Weyyakin), pursuant to I.R.C.P. 54(e)(1), I.C. §§ 12-121, 7-601, 1-1901, and 1-1902. The trial judge also imposed a monetary sanction of $500.00 against the Ketchum elected officials for contempt, which sanction was then suspended.

I. BACKGROUND

This contempt action arose from efforts by both the City of Ketchum and the City of Sun Valley to be the first to annex the Weyyakin subdivision. On March 3, 1993, the Ketchum elected officials adopted Ordinance No. 604 which annexed the Weyyakin subdivision, amended Ketchum's comprehensive plan, and amended the zoning ordinance. On March 5, Weyyakin filed suit for injunctive relief and applied for a temporary restraining order (TRO), claiming that Ketchum had not followed the correct procedures for annexation. ¹ The trial court issued the first TRO on March 5, which prohibited Ketchum from proceeding with the annexation of the Weyyakin subdivision until a decision was made on the preliminary injunction. Upon receiving a facsimile of the TRO, one day after it was issued, Ketchum's attorney requested a hearing to dissolve the TRO.

At the hearing, Weyyakin indicated that its real purpose in obtaining the TRO was to stop publication of Ketchum's ordinance annexing the subdivision. The Ketchum elected officials asked the trial court if all annexation efforts were halted, because they did not want the City of Sun Valley to obtain an advantage in the annexation process. The trial court indicated that the TRO was to stop publication of the ordinance, but nothing precluded the Ketchum elected officials from starting over and annexing the Weyyakin subdivision by following the correct procedure. After the hearing, the judge issued an amended TRO which added a discussion on irreparable injury, but did not elaborate further on the scope of the TRO.

Following the issuance of the amended TRO on March 8, the Ketchum elected officials did nothing more with the March 3 ordinance, but they also did not retrieve the notice of the ordinance which had been delivered to the local newspaper. Therefore, in spite of the TRO, the ordinance was published on March 17. The Ketchum elected officials, on advice of their attorney, held another meeting and using the procedures that the attorney stated were correct, began to annex the Weyyakin subdivision again on March 18. Weyyakin then proceeded with their preliminary injunction action, at which time the trial court found the March 3 ordinance void and permanently enjoined the Ketchum elected officials from annexing the subdivision until it complied procedurally with the Idaho Code.

At the preliminary injunction hearing, Weyyakin's attorney argued that Ketchum's elected officials were in contempt of the TRO and amended TRO due to the publication of the March 3 ordinance. Ketchum's elected officials maintained, however, that they had not done anything further on the March 3 ordinance and that their failure to retrieve the notice of the ordinance from the newspaper did not violate the TRO. They also argued that the amended TRO did not restrain them from utilizing the correct procedure to annex the Weyyakin subdivision. Subsequently, the trial court held a hearing at which time it found the Ketchum elected officials in contempt for violating the TROs. The trial court imposed a...