Opinion ID: 2125422
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: vacating alley

Text: The provisions of §§ 40-39-05 through 40-39-08, NDCC, govern vacating procedures. In this case Bank representatives, having obtained an option to purchase lots in the north one-half of Block 72 of the Original Plat in the City of Bismarck, conditional upon the vacating of the alley, contacted officials of the City. The purpose of the Bank was to erect a new bank building, which would encroach upon the alley unless the alley were vacated. At least some of the city officials knew this and, because they wanted to encourage downtown development, they attempted to assist the vacating procedure to the extent of providing the petition form and even obtaining the necessary signatures. Ultimately a petition satisfactory to the city commission, but contrary to the written advice of the city attorney, was filed and the auditor then published the notice required by § 40-39-06, NDCC, setting the matter for hearing. After the hearing, the Board of City Commissioners adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS, all of the owners of property adjoining and contiguous with the north 150 feet of an alley adjacent to Lots 1-6 and 19-24, inclusive, Block 72, Original Plat to the City of Bismarck, North Dakota, have heretofore joined in a petition requesting that said alley be vacated and setting forth the facts and reasons for said vacation, said petition was verified by oath of at least one (1) petitioner and was accompanied by a plat of said alley proposed to be vacated; WHEREAS, the Board of City Commissioners of the City of Bismarck, North Dakota, deemed it expedient that said matter be preceded (sic) with, ordered said petition to be filed in the office of the City Auditor. WHEREAS, The Board of City Commissioners ordered that notice be given on hearing on the aforesaid petition and the same was so given by publication in the official newspaper of said City on February 4, 21, 28, March 6, 1980, in accordance with law, the Board of City Commissioners at the time appointed, investigate[d] and considered the matter and heard testimony of the persons interested therein; March 20, 1980 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of City Commissioners of the City of Bismarck, North Dakota; 1. Petition heretofore described praying for the vacation of the north 150 feet of an alley adjacent to Lots 1-6 and 19-24, inclusive, Block 72, Original Plat to the City of Bismarck, North Dakota, is in all things allowed and granted. 2. That said portion of alley is hereby declared vacated, subject to the rights of any franchises, their successors and assigns, heretofore granted by the City of Bismarck, and not heretofore waived or abandoned. 3. That the City Auditor be and is hereby authorized to publish this resolution in the manner prescribed by law and file a transcript thereof for record in the office of the Register of Deeds, Burleigh County, North Dakota. The resolution was certified by the city auditor and filed in the office of the Register of Deeds of Burleigh County on March 25, 1980, Document No. 312799. The Bank then exercised its option to purchase the lots in the north one-half of Block 72. Shortly thereafter, the city commission had before it a different vacating petition in which Commissioner Brosseau had a special interest. The State Bank of Burleigh County was opposed to that vacation and raised a technicality which resulted in delaying the action of the City. The alleged defect involved an abutting owner who signed the petition to vacate after the City had accepted it and published notice of hearing thereon. It was pointed out to the Bank that the same alleged defect occurred in the proceeding to vacate the alley in the north one-half of Block 72. The city attorney again advised the city commissioners that the vacation of the alley in Block 72 was invalid and, in accordance with this advice, the city commission adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS, a petition was filed with the City to vacate the north 150 feet of an alley adjacent to Lots 1-6 and 19-24, inclusive, Block 72, Original Plat, and WHEREAS, proceedings for vacation based on said petition were thereafter taken by the City resulting in the adoption of a Resolution of Vacation dated March 25, 1980, recorded March 25, 1980 at 12:20 P.M., in the office of the Register of Deeds of Burleigh County, North Dakota, as Document No. 312799, and WHEREAS, it has now been found and determined that said petition for vacation did not comply with state law, to-wit: Section 40-39-05 N.D.C.C. NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED that the Resolution of Vacation dated March 25, 1980, is invalid and is hereby vacated and set aside. The petition allegedly failed to comply with state law in that one of the owners of a lot abutting the alley in the south one-half of Block 72 signed the petition after it had been filed and accepted by the board of city commissioners, and after the notice required by § 40-39-06, NDCC, had been published. The Bank sought to re-petition for the vacation of the alley but soon learned that Commissioner Brosseau had subsequently acquired an interest in one of the lots in the south one-half of Block 72 and had withdrawn the authorization for vacation given by the previous owner. That action by Commissioner Brosseau has prompted the Bank to abandon further efforts to re-petition and, instead, it has elected to rely upon the previous Resolution of Vacation, and to bring this action for declaratory judgment. In a memorandum opinion the trial court declared that: (1) Only owners of the lots in the north one-half of Block 72 were required by § 40-39-05, NDCC, to be signers on the petition to vacate the alley in the north one-half of Block 72; (2) All the required signatures on the petition should be affixed before the City accepts the petition and directs the publication of the notice as required by § 40-39-06, however this is not jurisdictional if there is substantial compliance; (3) There was substantial compliance in this case and no harm resulted from the late signatures; (4) The published notice was sufficient even though it was not a full disclosure; (5) The rights of the public were adequately protected; (6) There was no appeal from the vacation of the alley; and (7) The resolution to vacate the alley is valid, and the later resolution setting aside the resolution of vacation is of no force and effect. The judgment declared that the alley in the north one-half of Block 72 is vacated. Section 40-39-05, in pertinent part, provides that no alley, or parts thereof, shall be vacated except on a petition signed by all of the owners of the property adjoining the plat to be vacated. That specific language was first incorporated into the law by Chapter 190, S.L.1927. Prior thereto, and since first enacted by the Territorial Legislature in 1887, the pertinent language had been except upon a petition of a majority of the owners of property on the line of such public grounds, streets or alleys resident within the city. S.L.1887, Ch. 73, Article 15, § 13. The words property adjoining the plat to be vacated in the present law and the words property on the line of such ... alleys from the original law are ambiguous when applied to vacating a part of an alley. The words alley and plat to be vacated are not defined in our statutes; however, § 24-01-01.1(22), NDCC, describes an alley as a local street or road. There are many dictionary definitions of alley, plat, and vacate. We are required to adopt those reasonable definitions of alley and plat to be vacated so that we reach an interpretation of the statute which makes sense and avoids ludicrous and absurd results. See Skoog v. City of Grand Forks, 301 N.W.2d 404 (N.D.1981). We will use such extrinsic aids as are available. Apple Creek Tp. v. City of Bismarck, 271 N.W.2d 583 (N.D.1978); see also §§ 1-02-38 and 1-02-39, NDCC. Our consideration of all matters called to our attention leads us to conclude that the statute requires signatures on a petition to vacate a part of an alley only of those owners of property which adjoins that part of the alley which is sought to be vacated, and not those owners who may own property literally adjoining the plat to be vacated. Thus, because no lots in the south one-half of Block 72 adjoin that part of the alley in the north one-half of Block 72, signatures of the owners of lots in the south one-half of Block 72 are not required. An interest in continuation of the alley is not the same as owning property adjoining the plat [part of the alley] to be vacated. If all who may have an interest in the alley must be petition signers, there is little purpose in publishing notice or conducting a hearing. When we examine a companion statute adopted originally by the same 1877 Territorial Legislature, Chapter 109, S.L. 1877now §§ 40-50-24 and 40-50-25, NDCCwe see that vacating part of a plat have long been words used to describe vacating procedure; however, we recognize that it was specifically provided therein that vacating part of a plat would not authorize the closing or obstructing of any public highway. Vacating part of a plat has never been interpreted in these sections to require a petition by all of the owners of property in the plat or adjoining the plat. Section 40-50-22, NDCC. Nonetheless, the rights of those owners are to be protected. Section 40-50-25, NDCC. Although we are concerned with a different statute containing reference to part of an alley and plat to be vacated, rather than part of a plat, the analogy is obvious. The Supreme Court of South Dakota pointed out some differences between vacating part of a plat and vacating part of a street in In Re Mackrill's Addition, 85 S.D. 196, 179 N.W.2d 268 (1970). For the distinction between those matters which are jurisdictional in the vacating procedure from those that are not, see Anno:HighwayVacationProcedure, 175 A.L.R. 760 at 771, 773; Anno:Subdivision Maps or Plats, 11 A.L.R.2d 524 at 587; and City of Grand Forks v. Flom, 79 N.D. 289, 56 N.W.2d 324 (1952). We do not imply that a petition which seeks to vacate a part of an alley or street need not be signed by the owner of every tract of land which abuts the part of the alley or street sought to be vacated. See Hille v. Nill, 58 N.D. 536, 226 N.W. 635 (1929). 11 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations, 3d Ed.Rev., §§ 30.196 and 30.199 (1977), provides, among other things, that: Vacation can be effected only by a substantial observance of all mandatory legal requirements .... However, slight irregularities will not render such action void, and by estoppel and laches an irregular vacation may become absolute. 11 McQuillin, supra, at 132. See also 62 C.J.S., Municipal Corporations § 84; 39 Am.Jur.2d Highways, Streets, and Bridges §§ 143-149; Smith v. Anderson, 144 N.W.2d 530 (N.D.1966); Park District City of Fargo v. City of Fargo, 129 N.W.2d 828 (N.D.1964); Welsh v. Monson, 79 N.W.2d 155 (N.D.1956); Eisenzimmer v. Bell, 75 N.D. 733, 32 N.W.2d 891 (1948); and City of La Moure v. Lasell, 26 N.D. 638, 145 N.W. 577 (1914).