Title: Mai v. City of Topeka
Citation: 191 Kan. 589, 383 P.2d 553
Docket Number: 43,019
State: Kansas
Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court
Date: July 10, 1963

191 Kan. 589 (1963)
383 P.2d 553
LESLIE O. MAI (Plaintiff), JAMES M. BURRELL and CLARA M. BURRELL, his wife, and PHILIP I. HAMMER (Substituted as an additional plaintiff in the court below), Appellants,
v.
CITY OF TOPEKA, KANSAS, et al., Appellees.
No. 43,019

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed July 10, 1963.
Jacob A. Dickinson and Ralph E. Skoog, both of Topeka, argued the cause, and Sam A. Crow, Bill G. Honeyman and Hart Workmen, all of Topeka, were with them on the briefs for the appellants.
C. Bruce Works, of Topeka, argued the cause, and John W. Lewis, William B. McCormick, Donald S. Simons and William L. Harris, Jr., all of Topeka, were with him on the briefs for the appellees.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
PARKER, C.J.:
This was an action by landowners to enjoin the City of Topeka and designated officials from certifying to the County Clerk of Shawnee County for collection, or attempting to collect, certain assessments made against their real estate in connection with the curbing, guttering, and paving of a street. The plaintiffs have appealed from a judgment denying them injunctive relief.
The claims of the parties are set forth in the pleadings, pertinent portions of which will be quoted, or stated in summarized fashion, for informative purposes.
The petition, after recital of formal matters, including the status of the parties, reads:
The relief sought by the plaintiffs in the prayer of the petition has been previously noted.
In their answer defendants admitted their elective and appointive status and the execution and publication of the Ordinance in question, *591 as charged in the petition, and then denied generally all other allegations of that pleading.
With issues joined as related the case was tried by the district court which held, in substance, that Ordinance 9285 and the assessments levied under its terms on plaintiffs' land were valid and lawful, and then rendered the judgment heretofore indicated. Thereupon, and after overruling of their motion for a new trial, plaintiffs perfected the instant appeal wherein, under proper specifications of error, they are entitled to appellate review of questions to which we shall presently refer.
The record discloses little, if any, dispute as to the facts. However, it is recognized what has been said up to this point does not suffice to give readers of this opinion a proper understanding of the factual picture required to dispose of the decisive issues involved. Therefore, based on what we are able to glean from the record and the statement of facts made by counsel in their respective briefs, we shall proceed to amplify that picture, even though it involves some repetition.
On March 18, 1958, at a special meeting the City Commission approved the report of appraisers regarding 1956 Paving Project No. 3, Section No. 2, in the City of Topeka, which had been initiated by Ordinance No. 9285. Included in the project and report was the improving by grading, curbing and paving of Knollwood Drive from the west line of Burlingame Road to the east line of MacVicar Avenue, except for existing pavement along the north side of Block G in Knollwood.
Portions of the project here involved are limited to property abutting on the north and south sides of Knollwood Drive, lying between Mulvane Street and Old Trail Drive.
At the time assessments were levied, under the terms of the Ordinance in question appellants' land consisted of an unplatted tract of what appears to have been raw land. The dimensions of this land were 1152 feet, running east and west between Mulvane Street and Old Trail Drive, and 618.45 feet, running north and south between Knollwood Drive and Twenty-ninth Street. The entire tract consisted of approximately sixteen and one-half acres.
Appellants contend the land just described was unplatted, both as to Lots and Blocks. Appellees concede such land had never been platted into Lots and do not deny appellants' claim it had never been platted into Blocks. However, appellees do claim such land *592 is a "Block," within the meaning of G.S. 1949, 12-601. So far as this claim is concerned it is interesting to note appellees must stand or fall on the premise that, as a matter of law, such land was a "Block" by reason of the fact that at the time of the involved appraisal and assessments it was surrounded by four streets, lying within the City, namely, Knollwood Drive on the north, Mulvane Street on the east, Twenty-ninth Street on the south, and Old Trail Drive on the west.
Further facts, which may be said to be wholly uncontroverted, can be stated thus.
The assessments levied on appellants' land were to a depth of 309.225 feet on the south side of Knollwood Drive between Old Trail Drive and Mulvane Street. The assessments levied on the land to the north side of Knollwood Drive, which land was located immediately across the street from appellants' land and had been platted into Blocks and Lots prior to the time of the appraisal and assessments, were to a depth of 123 feet, i.e., the middle of Block B, Knollwood Subdivision.
The appellees proceeded in the appraisal and assessments under the provisions of G.S. 1949, 12-601, and treated the entire tract of appellants' land, bounded by Knollwood Drive, Twenty-ninth Street, Mulvane Street, and Old Trail Drive, as a "Block" for assessment purposes, although the tract consisted of approximately eight ordinary city blocks.
Appellants timely filed this action in the district court on April 18, 1958. Trial was commenced in the district court on August 31, 1961. In the interim subsequent purchasers of parcels of appellants' land were substituted as parties plaintiff. Judgment was rendered on November 3, 1961, for appellees on grounds that at the time the assessments in question were levied the area involved, i.e., the sixteen and one-half acre tract, was a "Block."
We will first note the pertinent statutes involved. G.S. 1949, 12-601, provides:
G.S. 1949, 12-606, reads:
The all-decisive question presented by the record is whether the tract under consideration was a "Block," within the meaning of G.S. 1949, 12-601, or whether it was "unplatted ground," within the meaning of the proviso contained in G.S. 1949, 12-606.
What constitutes a "Block" as used in special assessment statutes is not capable of exact definition. The answer must be found in the facts and circumstances of each particular case measured by the statute under consideration. The previous decisions of this court are not too helpful in the case at bar because most of them are predicated upon different factual situations and dissimilar statutes.
In Berndt v. City of Ottawa, 179 Kan. 749, 298 P.2d 262, this court held:
The foregoing general definition has many exceptions. In State, ex rel., v. City of Kansas City, 181 Kan. 870, 317 P.2d 806, it is said:
The fact that a tract may vary in size and shape from other blocks in the city does not prevent its designation as a block. (See Railway Co. v. City of Topeka, 103 Kan. 897, 176 Pac. 642; and Atchison, T. &amp; S.F. Rly. Co. v. City of Kingman, 122 Kan. 504, 252 Pac. 220.) However, the size of the tract must be given consideration or a ridiculous and unfair result will be reached. A tract should not be *594 considered as a block, simply because it is surrounded by streets, where it is of sufficient size that it is evident from the development in the area that it will have to be multisected by streets into numerous blocks for the purpose of platting building sites.
In McGrew v. Kansas City, 64 Kan. 61, 67 Pac. 438, it is said:
The applicable rule in the instant case is well-stated in Union Pac. Rld. Co. v. City of Russell, 119 Kan. 350, 240 Pac. 264, which reads:
*595 In passing, it is interesting to note that the foregoing quotation from Sivyer &amp; Sons Co. v. City of Spokane (Wash.), supra, was subsequently requoted by this court in Atchison, T. &amp; S.F. Rly. Co. v. City of Kingman, 122 Kan. 504, 507, 252 Pac. 220.
The legislature did not contemplate or intend that a tract be considered as a block for special assessment purposes regardless of its size and surrounding conditions. It was the intention of the legislature to eliminate inequalities, not to create new ones.
See, also, Watts v. City of Winfield, 101 Kan. 470, 168 Pac. 319, where it is said:
The size of the tract here in controversy is out of all proportion to the platted blocks directly to the north and the development plan prevailing in the area. It could not be anticipated that such tract would be developed as a single block without the necessity of additional streets.
In the face of the facts of record we are constrained to hold that the tract involved in this case is not a "Block" as the word is used in G.S. 1949, 12-601. To sustain any contention to the contrary *596 would result in an unfair, inequitable and unjust assessment. It follows such tract should have been assessed as unplatted ground in conformity with the provisions of the heretofore quoted proviso of G.S. 1949, 12-606. We so held in a case involving similar, if not wholly indistinguishable, conditions and circumstances. See Mount Hope Cemetery Co. v. City of Topeka, 190 Kan. 702, 378 P.2d 30, where, in considering the City's appeal from an order and judgment of the trial court holding that the City failed to follow statutory provisions of G.S. 1949, 12-606, in levying special assessments against the Cemetery property to a depth of 300 feet while on property on the immediate opposite side of the street it levied assessments to a lesser depth, this court affirmed that portion of the trial court's judgment when it said and held:
What has been heretofore considered and discussed in this opinion requires that the judgment be reversed with directions to the district court to enjoin the involved special assessments as levied, and it is so ordered.