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) with a reverter clause: title would revert to the City if a children's museum was not operated on the property.
- SCM never opened the museum; the City Council voted to release the reverter clause and the mayor executed a "Release of Deed Restriction and Reversion Clause" on April 17, 2017; the release was recorded June 21, 2017.
- SCM sold the property to Block 40 South, LLC (Developer) in April 2018; Developer claims good‑faith purchaser status and clear title.
- The City filed a declaratory judgment action in June 2019 seeking a ruling that the release was lawful and the reverter had nominal value; one week later, Cory Williams (a taxpayer) submitted a Section 373 written demand signed by >100 registered voters and moved to intervene to prosecute a qui tam claim.
- The trial court denied Williams's motion to intervene, holding the Section 374 two‑year limitations period ran from April 17, 2017 (the execution date of the release), so Williams's June 21, 2019 demand was untimely; the court also rejected intervention under the equitable injunction and declaratory judgment statutes.
- On appeal the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed: qui tam statutes are strictly construed, the transfer date was the execution date, and alternative bases for intervention were inapplicable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (City/Developer) | Intervenor's Argument (Williams) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of qui tam written demand under 62 O.S. §374 | Transfer occurred when City executed the release (Apr 17, 2017); demand (Jun 21, 2019) is >2 years and therefore untimely | Transfer occurs when instrument is recorded (Jun 21, 2017), so demand was timely (exactly two years) | Transfer date is execution date; demand untimely; intervention denied |
| Whether taxpayer may intervene because City failed to diligently present controversy | City had filed a declaratory action and adequately presented the issue; taxpayer must show insufficiency | City omitted facts (sales prices, cloud on title) showing reverter value > $250,000 and inadequate prosecution | Court did not reach merits because qui tam demand was time‑barred; intervention denied |
| Intervention under 12 O.S. §1397 (equitable injunction) | §1397 does not apply to releases/transfers of property; remedy is statutory (qui tam) | Equitable injunction is available where no other remedy; §1397 should enjoin the release | §1397’s plain language does not cover this release; trial court did not err denying intervention under §1397 |
| Intervention under declaratory judgment statute (12 O.S. §1651) | Declaratory relief does not revive or extend time‑barred qui tam claims; Williams’s claim is jurisdictionally barred | Williams may intervene notwithstanding time bar | Declaratory judgment statute does not permit intervention to litigate a time‑barred qui tam claim; intervention denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Skrapka v. Bonner, 187 P.3d 202 (Okla. 2008) (standards governing intervention as of right and permissive intervention)
- City of Broken Arrow v. Bass Pro Outdoor World, LLC, 250 P.3d 305 (Okla. 2011) (qui tam taxpayer intervention and adequacy of public‑body prosecution)
- Tulsa Indus. Auth. v. City of Tulsa, 270 P.3d 113 (Okla. 2011) (taxpayer may intervene only if public body fails to diligently prosecute; limits on equitable relief)
- State ex rel. Twist v. Bailey, 295 P.2d 763 (Okla. 1956) (qui tam statutes strictly construed)
- Stump v. Cheek, 179 P.3d 606 (Okla. 2007) (statutory construction principles: give effect to plain language)
- Conoco, Inc. v. State Dep’t of Health, 651 P.2d 125 (Okla. 1982) (declaratory judgment does not expand a court’s jurisdiction to entertain otherwise barred claims)