Palmer v. City of Phoenix
242 Ariz. 158
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In 2015 Grand Canyon University (GCU) applied to the City of Phoenix to abandon portions of West Colter Street and North 30th Drive that had been dedicated to public use in a 1926 plat (the "1926 Dedication").
- GCU owned nearly all abutting parcels except three, two of which are owned by appellants Gail and Janice Palmer and Gary Perkins-Warinner (the Landowners); GCU proposed installing guard gates and other measures to control access.
- At a hearing GCU offered stipulations: build an express/thru lane for non-GCU users, maintain pavement and sidewalks at GCU’s expense, grant permanent recorded access easements to the private parcels, and preserve pedestrian access to Little Canyon Trail.
- The City’s Abandonment Hearing Officer conditionally approved the abandonment; the City Council later unanimously approved a conditional abandonment with modified stipulations and directed that abandonment would be effectuated via a public sale subject to compliance with those stipulations.
- The Landowners sued in superior court (special action) arguing the abandonment violated the 1926 Dedication, state law and City Code, and that the public-sale method was engineered to ensure GCU would be the sole buyer. The superior court dismissed; the court of appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the City could abandon roadway dedicated to public use in 1926 | Landowners: dedication vested the roadway in trust for public use and thus precluded abandonment | City/GCU: statutory scheme (including 1913 Code and present statutes) permits cities to vacate/abandon city-owned streets | The City may conditionally abandon dedicated streets; dedication was subject to city’s statutory right to vacate |
| Whether Landowners may challenge the legislative abandonment absent special damages | Landowners: City’s determination that roadway was not necessary for public use was incorrect; they may challenge it | City/GCU: under Reese, property owners cannot attack legislative abandonment without showing special damages (or fraud/illegality/ultra vires) | Landowners cannot challenge the legislative decision because they produced no evidence of special damages |
| Whether the public-sale method violated A.R.S. § 28-7204 or City Code by being "engineered" for GCU | Landowners: stipulations attached to any purchaser were designed to deter competing bidders, effectively ensuring GCU would be the only bidder | City/GCU: statute and code govern notice and sale process but do not limit stipulations a municipality may impose | Court: stipulations do not violate § 28-7204 or City Code; those provisions regulate notice, not the substance of stipulations |
| Whether the City acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or beyond its authority | Landowners: City abused discretion and acted illegally in conditionally approving abandonment and structuring sale | City/GCU: City acted within statutory and charter authority and followed procedures; conditional approval preserved council oversight | Court: decision was within City’s declared powers and not arbitrary or beyond jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Reese v. De Mund, 74 Ariz. 140, 245 P.2d 284 (1952) (municipal decision to vacate dedicated street is legislative; owners cannot challenge absent special damages or illegality)
- Reese v. De Mund, 75 Ariz. 66, 251 P.2d 887 (1952) (affirming limitation on challenges to municipal vacation absent special damages)
- Allied Am. Inv. Co. v. Pettit, 65 Ariz. 283, 179 P.2d 437 (1947) (statutory plat dedication vests fee in town in trust for public use)
- Carbajal v. Industrial Commission, 223 Ariz. 1, 219 P.3d 211 (2009) (courts avoid statutory constructions that render provisions meaningless)
- Martini v. Smith, 42 P.3d 629 (Colo. 2002) (dedication is subject to municipality’s statutory power to vacate streets)