Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Bonito Partners, LLC v. City of Flagstaff, No. 1 CA-CV-0819 (Ariz Ct App Feb 21, 2012)

Bonito Partners, LLC v. City of Flagstaff, No. 1 CA-CV-0819 (Ariz Ct App Feb 21, 2012)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 3,385|Likes:
Published by robert_thomas_5

More info:

Published by: robert_thomas_5 on Feb 21, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

02/21/2012

pdf

text

original

 
IN THE COURT OF APPEALSSTATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE
BONITO PARTNERS, LLC, an Arizonalimited liability company,Plaintiff/Appellant,v.CITY OF FLAGSTAFF, amunicipality,Defendant/Appellee.))))))))))))1 CA-CV 10-0819DEPARTMENT C
O P I N I O N
 Appeal from the Superior Court in Coconino CountyCause No. CV2010-00231The Honorable Jacqueline Hatch, Judge
 AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART
Gerald W. Nabours FlagstaffAttorney for AppellantMangum, Wall, Stoops & Warden, P.L.L.C. FlagstaffBy Kenneth H. BrendelClyde P. HalsteadAttorneys for AppelleeDavid R. Merkel PhoenixJoni L. HoffmanAttorneys for Amicus Curiae League of Arizona Cities and Towns
H A L L
, Judge
¶1
 
Bonito Partners, LLC (Bonito) appeals from the trialcourt’s summary judgment in favor of the City of Flagstaff (the
DIVISION ONEFILED:RUTH
A.
WILLINGHAM,CLERK
 
BY:
02/21/2012
DLL
 
2City). Bonito contends that the City’s ordinance requiring thatowners of property adjoining sidewalks keep them in repair andimposing a lien against the property for the costs of repair ifperformed by the City is unconstitutional because, among otherreasons, it “takes” private property for public use without justcompensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment. Finding thatthe ordinance is a valid exercise of the City’s police powers,the trial court rejected Bonito’s Takings Clause claim. Eventhough we agree that the ordinance constitutes a lawful exerciseof the City’s police powers, such a determination does notresolve the Takings Clause challenge, which is an analyticallydistinct issue. Therefore, we affirm in part and vacate andremand in part.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
 
¶2
 
The facts relevant to the issues on appeal areundisputed. Bonito owns a parcel of land in Flagstaff that isadjacent to a City sidewalk. At some point, through no fault ofBonito, the sidewalk fell into disrepair. In a letter dated May18, 2009, the City notified Bonito that, pursuant to Cityordinance Section 8-01-001-0003, Bonito was responsible forrepairing the sidewalk within ten days. The letter furtherexplained that the City would repair the sidewalk and billBonito for the work if Bonito failed to complete the repairswithin the designated time period. If Bonito then failed to
 
3timely pay the City for the repair work, the City would place alien on Bonito’s property.
¶3
 
On June 25, 2009, Bonito received a second notice fromthe City stating that Bonito was responsible for the cost ofrepairing the sidewalk. On June 29, 2009, Bonito responded tothe City’s second notice, stating: “Please proceed with therepairs. Do not wait for Bonito Partners, LLC to do the work.”
¶4
 
The City performed the work to repair the sidewalk.On July 23, 2009, the City sent Bonito a letter explaining thatit had performed the repairs and included an itemized statementof the repair costs. Bonito failed to pay the City for therepairs and the City recorded a lien on Bonito’s property.
¶5
 
On March 23, 2010, Bonito filed a complaint in thetrial court, arguing that the City’s ordinance requiring privateproperty owners to repair public sidewalks violates the federaland state constitutional prohibitions against the taking ofprivate property for public use without just compensation. In asubsequent amended complaint, Bonito also alleged that theordinance constitutes an unlawful tax and exceeds the authoritypermitted by Arizona statute and the City’s charter.
¶6
 
Bonito and the City filed cross-motions for summaryjudgment. After holding oral argument on the motions, the trialcourt granted summary judgment in favor of the City.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->