Superior Court Decides Question Of Standing To Challenge Annexations

In a recent case in Maricopa County Superior Court, thirty different annexation cases were contested by six plaintiffs, even though the plaintiffs resided in the area to be annexed by only six of the annexations.

In Keany et al v. Town of Gilbert et al, plaintiffs petitioned the court to overturn the annexations for several alleged defects in the annexation process. Defendant Town of Gilbert challenged the plaintiffs' standing to object to those annexations of areas in which plaintiffs do not reside or have a property interest. A.R.S. Section 9-471 allows "interested parties" to file a lawsuit questioning the validity of an annexation for failure to comply with the requirements set forth in Section 9-471. Plaintiffs alleged that they were "interested parties" because the annexations would decrease the viability of a county island fire district they were trying to form.

Superior Court Judge McMurdie disagreed. He granted the Town's Motion to Dismiss the litigation as to twenty-four of the annexation cases because the plaintiff's were not "interested parties" and, therefore, did not have standing. In his opinion he stated that although the status of being an "interested party" is not reserved solely to owners of property within the area to be annexed, in order to be considered an "interested party" one must allege a "distinct and palpable injury" that is "particularized to themselves".

Plaintiffs in this case were not able to do that, in part because their interest in establishing a fire district was rendered moot by the Arizona Court of Appeals decision affirming the trial court's decision that the statute pursuant to which the plaintiffs were going to form a fire district was unconstitutional.

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