Young v. Mayor, Council and Citizens of City of Liberty, 59110

• Decision Date: 12 January 1976
• Docket Number: No. 59110,59110
• Citation: 531 S.W.2d 732
• Parties: Donald R. YOUNG et al., Appellants, v. MAYOR, COUNCIL AND CITIZENS OF the CITY OF LIBERTY, Missouri, a Municipal Corporation, Respondents.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

Page 732

531 S.W.2d 732

Donald R. YOUNG et al., Appellants, v. MAYOR, COUNCIL AND CITIZENS OF the CITY OF LIBERTY Missouri, a Municipal Corporation, Respondents.

No. 59110.

Supreme Court of Missouri, En Banc.

Jan. 12, 1976.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 9, 1976.

John C. Dods Shook, Hardy & Bacon, and Richard E. Duggan, Kansas City, for appellants.

Don M. Jackson, Kansas City, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

This case, involving an attack upon the validity of an annexation by the city of Liberty, resulted in a judgment for the city, et al. (defendants) and an appeal to the court of appeals, Kansas City district. That court reversed and remanded in an opinion by Welborn, sitting as a special judge, after which we ordered the case transferred to this court. We determine after review that the opinion of Welborn, S.J., should be, and it is, adopted with minor additions as the decision of this court.

The city of Liberty is a Special Charter city, having a population by the 1970 census of less than 20,000 inhabitants. Its power of annexation is fixed by § 81.080, RSMo 1969, which provides, in part:

'Any city or town of less than twenty thousand inhabitants and having a special charter, after the taking effect of such charter, may at any time extend its limits by ordinance, specifying with accuracy the new lines to which it is proposed to extend such limits. All courts of this state shall take judicial notice of the limits of such city when thus extended.'

On April 6, 1962, the Liberty City Council passed a resolution by which it declared its intention to annex approximately 25 square miles of unincorporated territory, described in the resolution. The date of the proposed annexation was set as January 1, 1967.

In compliance with the 'Sawyers Act' (§ 71.015, RSMo 1969), approximately one year later, on May 31, 1963, the city filed an action (case No. 29890) for a declaratory judgment. The petition described the area to be annexed as that covered by the resolution and stated that the city 'proposes that such annexation would become effective on January 1, 1967.' Six landowners in the area proposed to be annexed were named defendants and class representatives. No response to the city's petition was filed.

On September 9, 1963, the matter was heard in the Clay County Circuit Court, Division No. 2. On that date, the circuit court entered judgment, by which it found that the defendants were fairly chosen; that they adequately and fairly represented the whole class of landowners in the area to be annexed; and, that all of the landowners in the area described will be bound by the judgment. The judgment further recited:

'The Court further finds that the annexation prayed in the plaintiff's petition is reasonable and necessary to the proper development of the plaintiff's city and further finds that the plaintiff will have the ability to furnish the normal municipal services to the area herein sought to be annexed within a reasonable time after said annexation has become effective on January 1, 1967.'

The court adjudged 'that the plaintiff be and is hereby authorized to annex to the City of Liberty the * * * property (described in the petition).'

Having obtained the above judgment as required by the Sawyers Act, the Liberty City Council enacted on the same day (September 9, 1963) Ordinance No. 2278, extending the city limits to include the area set out in the judgment, and prescribing an effective date for the annexation of January 1, 1967.

On December 22, 1965, the city council amended Ordinance No. 2278 by removing a part of the area described in Ordinance No. 2278. The ordinance recited no reason for the change. The size of the deleted area does not appear other than as property lying in two survey sections.

On December 22, 1966, the council again amended Ordinance No. 2278, this time to postpone the effective date of the annexation to January 1, 1968. The ordinance, as thus amended, recited that there was a pending lawsuit challenging another annexation and that if that annexation were held invalid, the territory covered by Ordinance No. 2278 would not be contiguous to the city limits.

Five subsequent amendatory ordinances, enacted from December 18, 1967, to December 13, 1971, each postponed the effective date of the annexation by one year, until January 1, 1973, became the effective date. No reason for the amendments appears in any of these ordinances.

On October 30, 1972, Ordinance No. 2278, as amended, was again amended. By this amendment, the last, the limits of the area to be annexed were changed so that the size of the area to be annexed in fact on the effective date was reduced to less than one-half of that originally proposed. The area described in this amendatory ordinance was all within the area originally proposed to be annexed. The ordinance called for the extension of the city limits to become effective January 1, 1973.

On December 21, 1972, Donald R. Young, et al. (plaintiffs), three residents of the area described in the last ordinance, brought the instant suit in three counts: (1) to enjoin enforcement of Ordinance No. 2278, as amended; (2) for a declaratory judgment to the effect that the ordinances purporting to annex the area to the city of Liberty are void; and (3) in quo warranto on the information of the Clay County Prosecuting Attorney at the relation of a resident of the area sought to be annexed, praying for a judgment that the ordinances purporting to annex the tract in question were void.

The grounds for relief were the same in all three counts. Several of the grounds have been abandoned and basically the sole ground now relied upon is paragraph 11(e) of Count I of the petition:

'The defendant has failed and refused to comply with the intent and purpose of Section 71.015, et seq., RSMo., 1969, as amended, by attempting to delay the effective date of said annexation beyond the time set forth in the original Ordinance No. 2278 and as declared by this Court in cause No. 29890, in that the defendant has illegally attempted to circumvent the requirement of law that a court of general jurisdiction declare the reasonableness and necessity of the proposed annexation of the specific area sought to be annexed at a time contemporaneous with the date thereof; * * *.'

The defendants' answer in general alleged that the city had complied with the Sawyers Act in the 1963 action and that subsequent postponement of the effective date of annexation and reductions in the area to be annexed were matters for determination by the city council in the exercise of legislative right and prerogative. The defendants also asserted that the 1963 declaratory judgment was res judicata, giving the city a continuing authority to proceed with the annexation at such times and in such manner as might be determined solely by it.

No temporary injunctive relief was granted and the annexation became effective January 1, 1973.

The cause was heard in circuit court on July 5, 1973. The plaintiffs presented documentary evidence consisting of the ordinances involved, the petition and judgment in the 1963 action and a land use sketch plan, dated October, 1970, prepared by the Metropolitan Planning Commission, Kansas City Region, which described the boundary of the area authorized to be annexed as a 'holding order' boundary. Plaintiffs also offered oral testimony of one of the plaintiffs and what they claimed were admissions from depositions of the Mayor and City Administrator of Liberty.

The trial court found for defendants. Its conclusions of law are as follows '1. The declaratory judgment entered on September 6, 1963, by the Circuit Court of Clay County, in Case No. 29890 authorized the City to proceed with the annexation of the area of land described therein as otherwise authorized by its charter and became a final, binding and conclusive judgment, no appeal being taken therefrom.

'2. The date of January 1, 1967, in the declaratory judgment entered on September 6, 1963, in Case No. 29890 was the earliest date on which said annexation could become effective. It did not prevent the City from postponing the date.

'3. After the declaratory judgment was entered in Case No. 29890, the time when the limits of the annexation to be made by the City, so long as the land annexed lay within the boundary of the tract set out in the judgment, was solely and exclusively a discretionary legislative prerogative for the determination by the City Council of the City of Liberty. This judgment merely established that the annexing of the described tract was reasonable and necessary to the proper development of the City, and that the City could provide municipal services; its effect was merely to authorize the City to proceed. The City was not bound or required to proceed to annex all of the described tract and could postpone action to such later date as it might see fit, or annex only a portion of the tract, in its sole discretion, subject only to a change of conditions and circumstances.

'4. All actions taken by the City Council subsequent to September 6, 1963, in amending the original ordinance of that date, No. 2278, either with respect to reducing the territory to be included or extending the effective date, were legal and valid ordinances enacted pursuant to the power vested in the City Council of the City of Liberty.

'5. The judgment in Case No. 29890 finding that annexation of the area described therein by the City of Liberty was reasonable and necessary is res adjudicata, binding and conclusive unless and until such a substantial change of conditions and circumstances is shown as to make the annexation unreasonable and unnecessary, rather than reasonable and necessary as found.

'6. That the burden of proving such a substantial change of conditions and circumstances was upon the plaintiffs in this case. The plaintiffs have failed to establish that there was such a substantial change of conditions and circumstances as to make the...