Opinion ID: 1187129
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Role of City in Taxpayer's Suit

Text: The City also contends that the entry of judgment against it alone is error, and asks this Court to enter a judgment in its favor for the rental value against the Johnson heirs. Implicit in this argument is the proposition that the proper role for the City in a § 373 suit is only as a nominal party. Section 373 requires the City to be named as a defendant. Vaughan v. Latta [10] held that the municipality must be designated as a party, for in no other way could the municipality have its day in court, and have its rights considered, nor be bound by the judgment rendered. Clearly, the City is a real party in interest. [11] The City contends that the judgment for the reward should not be entered against it alone. Prior Oklahoma cases have held that under a § 373 action one-half of the value of the property recovered in the action maintained by the taxpayer goes to the taxpayer as a reward for his services. [12] The statute is silent as to a municipality's remedy, if any. Thus logic demands the judgment for the reward under § 373 contemplates it to be against the City alone. Admittedly, the cases cited in footnotes 10 and 11 are clearly distinguishable from our factual situation. Those cases dealt with procedural matters, e.g., demurrers to petitions, removal to federal court, motions to dismiss, statute of limitations, etc. The instant case has matured past the procedural question, and we now decide the proper value of the reward. In Remy I at page 1241, it is clear that the reward for the return of property is to be paid by the City. Remy I held ..., the City, who through efforts of the taxpayer has had land returned to it, rewards the taxpayer for his or her efforts by sharing the benefits of the taxpayer's efforts with the taxpayer... (Emphasis added). Further analysis of Remy indicates plaintiff made no allegations of criminal or tortious wrongdoings on behalf of the Johnson heirs nor was relief demanded against them. Remy I reveals that it is the acts of the City conveying property (trust property) held for the benefit of the inhabitants of the City, a City dump, that is unauthorized, unlawful, fraudulent or void. [13] We do not decide whether a landowner may adjust his disputed boundary with a City under the facts of this decision, but leave that question to another day.