CITY OF STILLWATER v. BLOCK 40 SOUTH
2021 OK CIV APP 29
| Okla. Civ. App. | 2021Background
- In 2009 the City of Stillwater conveyed a tract to Stillwater Children's Museum, Ltd. (SCM) by deed containing a reverter: title would revert to City if SCM failed to operate a children's museum.
- SCM never opened a museum (reverter clouded financing).
- City Council voted to release the reverter and the mayor executed a "Release of Deed Restriction and Reversion Clause" on April 17, 2017; that release was recorded June 21, 2017.
- SCM sold the property to Block 40 South, LLC (Developer) in April 2018.
- City filed a declaratory-judgment action in June 2019 seeking a ruling that the release was lawful; on June 21, 2019 Cory Williams submitted a written qui tam demand signed by >100 voters and moved to intervene.
- The trial court denied Williams's motion to intervene as untimely under the qui tam statute; Williams appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Williams' Argument | City/Developer's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Date of "transfer" for §374 limitations | Transfer date is recording (June 21, 2017); demand timely | Transfer effective on execution (April 17, 2017); demand untimely | Transfer date is execution (April 17, 2017); Williams' June 21, 2019 demand was untimely |
| Right to intervene as qui tam plaintiff | Demand satisfied §373; City failed to diligently prosecute; intervention warranted | Demand time-barred; City diligently presented controversy | Intervention denied — demand untimely; court did not reach diligence merits |
| Availability of equitable-injunction remedy (12 O.S. §1397) | §1397 permits injunctive relief to challenge transfer | §1397 applies to void judgments/taxes/nuisances, not ordinary property releases | §1397 inapplicable to this release; intervention under it denied |
| Intervention under declaratory-judgment statute (12 O.S. §1651) | May intervene to contest City's release | Qui tam demand is time-barred; declaratory-judgment route unavailable | Denied: time-bar on qui tam claim precludes intervention via §1651 |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Henricksen v. State ex rel. Corporation Commission, 37 P.3d 835 (Okla. 2001) (§374 timing operates as statute of limitations)
- Tulsa Industrial Authority v. City of Tulsa, 270 P.3d 113 (Okla. 2011) (public body's diligent prosecution can bar taxpayer intervention)
- City of Broken Arrow v. Bass Pro Outdoor World, L.L.C., 250 P.3d 305 (Okla. 2011) (standards for taxpayer intervention in declaratory actions)
- Smith v. Benson, 262 P.2d 438 (Okla. 1953) (recording gives constructive notice; actual knowledge can make recording unnecessary)
- Stump v. Cheek, 179 P.3d 606 (Okla. 2007) (statutory-construction principles: give effect to plain words)
- State ex rel. Twist v. Bailey, 295 P.2d 763 (Okla. 1956) (qui tam statutes must be strictly construed)
- Conoco, Inc. v. State Department of Health, 651 P.2d 125 (Okla. 1982) (declaratory-judgment limitations and jurisdictional limits)