Opinion ID: 1355008
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the petition submitted

Text: The Buffalo Creek Valley petition was considered by the County Commission of Logan County at their meeting on March 5, 1975, and after examination, the commission determined that the petition and maps attached thereto did not meet the requirements stated in the West Virginia Code and the petition was rejectednot dismissed after hearing. In paragraph V of their petition for mandamus petitioners submit that all of the requirements of sections 1 and 2 of the statute were met in the initial filing. At the county commission's meeting on April 7, 1975, the freeholders' petition for incorporation of the city was resubmitted together with revised supplemental maps. Thereupon the commission set the incorporation petition for hearing on May 6, 1975, at which time evidence and arguments for and against incorporation were heard. The order of the commission, acting on the petition, entered June 2, 1975, is as follows: Evidence was adduced in favor of the proposed city, opposed to the proposed city, regarding the proposed boundary lines of the proposed city and in reference to the validity of the names on the said petition; the total number of freeholders within the proposed boundaries, and the accuracy and validity of the map filed with said petition. The Commission, upon mature consideration of all such, does determine that the requirements of Chapter 8, Article 2, Section 1, and Chapter 8, Article 2, Section 2, have not been met and accordingly ORDERS and ADJUDGES that the Petition filed herein requesting said incorporation is hereby dismissed. The County Court, in a Supplemental Statement of Findings of Fact and Reasons for Denial of Petition by County Commission of Logan County In Re: Petition to Incorporate Buffalo Valley as a Class III City, enumerated eight propositions justifying its action dismissing the petition after the hearing of May 6, 1975. The effect of this statement was to deem the petition insufficient because of a lack of further proof on the part of the petitioners at the hearing. The evidence brought forth by the petitioners consists of a Petition to Incorporate Buffalo Valley as a Class III City. This verified petition also contains 434 signatures preceded by eight enumerated statements that the statutory requisites have been met. The verified statements pertinent to this case are: 1. That the territory sought to be incorporated is located wholly within Logan County, West Virginia, and in Tridelphia District thereof and does not include any territory within the corporate limits of any existing municipality. 2. That the territory has a population exceeding five hundred per square mile, is urban in character and otherwise meets the requirements for incorporation as a municipality as set forth in Chapter eight, Article Two of the Official Code of West Virginia, 1931, as amended. 3. That more than thirty per cent (30%) of the freeholders of said territory sought to be incorporated have signed this petition. 5. That this petition is verified as required by law. 6. That this petition is accompanied by a map made by the engineering firm of Howard, Needles, Tammen and Bergendoff and verified by a professional engineer registered under the laws of this State, which map is based upon an actual and accurate survey of the territory to be incorporated, showing the courses, distances and the area of the territory to be incorporated. 7. That said map is verified and will be posted and made available for examination by all persons interested for more than ten (10) days prior to any hearing held on this petition as required by law. The petition was verified by one of the signers, Charles Cowan, who testified at the hearing but was not cross-examined on any of these points. The record is devoid of any evidence refuting the prima facie case made in the paragraph concerning population and urban character. In fact, the record, taken in its totality, would show substantial population and urban character. The supplemental statement, therefore, fails on these points. The bulk of the evidence that militated against the claim by petitioners that they had the requisite number of signatures of the freeholders [6] of the area sought to be incorporated was the testimony under oath of attorney Edward I. Eiland, who was the lawyer representing at this hearing three corporations that objected to the proposed incorporation. [7] He represented that he had prepared a list of 1,660 freeholders. If, of course, there were that many freeholders, then the petition for incorporation would be inadequate in that it would fail to contain the requisite 30 percent of signatures. Mr. Eiland states that there may be instances where I am wrong. I don't know. I am told that this proposed incorporation does not include the town of Saunders and I listed several parcels from the area . . . I have tried to be as accurate as I can. I sometimes make mistakes but there is the list. Later, after testifying about the law governing incorporation, Attorney Eiland was cross-examined. In response to the question The proposed municipality goes from Kessler to Pardee, is it not a fact that your list contains people who live as far as seven miles beyond Pardee? Eiland answered: Well, I don't know the distance. When asked, [Y]ou are not sure the areas you included in your list are in fact the same and only the same areas included in the proposed incorporation area? he answered, That's right. He further admitted on cross-examination that his list was not verified and was not certified by any county official. The Court detects a problem with Mr. Eiland's testimony. His unverified, uncertified list of 1,660 purported freeholders is, by his own admission, drawn from a larger, more inclusive area than the proposed corporate limits. Apart from Eiland's testimony, the only other evidence that militates against the petitioners' prima facie case is the testimony of a deputy commissioner who testified that only 425 of the 434 petitioners were freeholders. But since neither the objectors or the commission brought forth evidence as to the total number of freeholders, the burden of proving statutory noncompliance is not met. To say that a few signers were not freeholders is not the same as saying that the remaining valid signatures fail to comprise 30 percent of the freeholders required under W.Va.Code § 8-2-2. In summary, the record discloses that the testimony of Attorney Eiland and of the deputy clerk constituted the case against the verified petition which on its face purported to contain signatures of 30 percent of the freeholders in the area sought to be incorporated. We cannot hold the petition invalid on the admittedly inaccurate testimony of an attorney representing corporations which object to the proposed municipality principally because they will have to pay more tax. And although the deputy commissioner could find error in the petitioners' efforts, no showing was made that any aspects of the statutes were not satisfied. Thus, the objectors failed to prove that the petition did not substantially comply with the statute, and the county commission's order to that effect is not supported by the evidence.