Court of Appeals Analyzes Dueling Annexations

In Cornman Tweed 560, LLC v. City of Casa Grande, (2006), the Arizona Court of Appeals invalidated an attempt by Casa Grande to annex property. It also invalidated the City of Eloy’s overlapping annexation petition filed on the same day a complaint was filed challenging the Casa Grande petition.

Compliance with Contiguity Requirements:

The first issue addressed by the Court was whether the territory proposed to be annexed by Casa Grande complied with one of the prongs of the contiguity requirement of A.R.S. § 9-471, which requires that the “distance from the existing boundary of the annexing city or town where it adjoins the annexed territory to the furthest point of the annexed territory from such boundary is no more than twice the maximum width of the annexed territory”.

The Plaintiff alleged that the “length” of the annexation territory was more than double its maximum “width”. The Court pointed out that A.R.S. § 9-471(H)(3) does not mention “length”. It merely requires that the width of the territory be compared to the distance between the adjoining boundary and “the furthest point of the annexation territory from such boundary”. The Court said that the correct way to determine statutory compliance is to measure the “furthest point of the territory” by using the boundary point of the territory that is the greatest distance from the nearest shared boundary point.

State Consent: The petition was invalidated, however, because Casa Grande had failed to secure a proper consent to include state land in the annexation. The City had obtained consent to annex the state land 8 years earlier in connection with another annexation. The Court found that the old consent could not be used because the consent had to be associated with the specific annexation request.

Eloy’s Defective Affidavit: Eloy’s annexation petition included an affidavit stating that no part of the territory for which the annexation was made “is already subject to a valid earlier filing for annexation.” The Court found that the affidavit did not comply with A.R.S. § 9-471(A)(6) as it did not verify that no part of the territory is subject to an earlier filing for annexation. The Court rejected Eloy’s argument reasoning, there was no provision for filing a contingent petition “to secure priority in the event a prior petition is successfully challenged.” Municipalities have no authority to “unilaterally assess the validity of another municipality’s petition and disregard the prohibition on a subsequent petition if, in their opinion, the prior petition is defective.” Such actions frustrate the intent of the law (i.e., to allow specific territory to be encompassed by only one filed petition for annexation at any one time).

THE FOREGOING IS MERELY A PARTIAL SUMMARY OF THE CASE
AND IS NOT TO BE RELIED UPON AS A LEGAL OPINION.