Opinion ID: 1291026
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Did appellant have a right to withdraw his resignation?

Text: (1b) Appellant contends that his withdrawal of the resignation was effective since, apparently, he submitted it before the resignation had been accepted, before the effective date he proposed in the resignation, and before his employers took any action in reliance on it. Judicial opinions have not been consistent on the question of whether a resignation effective at a future date may be withdrawn prior to that date. (See Hamm v. City of Santa Ana (1969) 273 Cal. App.2d 84, 89-90 [78 Cal. Rptr. 102], and cases cited therein.) In People v. Porter (1856) 6 Cal. 26 this court held (1) that a judge's resignation was effective on the date stated therein, and (2) that no acceptance by the appointing power was required to make it effective. The opinion suggests, further, that the judge did have power prior to the effective date to withdraw the resignation and continue in office. ( Id., p. 28.) The board contends that we should reject that suggestion and follow a line of subsequent decisions indicating that (absent a statute, ordinance, or rule authorizing withdrawal) an employee's resignation is binding once submitted. (See Hamm v. City of Santa Ana, supra, 273 Cal. App.2d 84; People v. Marsh (1916) 30 Cal. App. 424 [159 P. 191].) We do not find those cases persuasive. After noting that case law discloses a wide spectrum of views, the court in Hamm (273 Cal. App.2d at p. 89) held that a civil service employee would have had a right to withdraw his resignation if he had complied with an ordinance providing a procedure for withdrawal. Words in the opinion implying that, absent such an ordinance, he would have had no such right were dicta. People v. Marsh, supra, 30 Cal. App. 424 rejected the Porter dictum and held that a district attorney had no right to withdraw his resignation even when he attempted to do so before it was accepted. While the rule there stated makes no reference to the facts presented, it is interesting to note that the district attorney submitted his withdrawal at a board of supervisors meeting specially called to accept his resignation and appoint his successor. Thus action may well have been taken by the board in reliance on the resignation before the meeting was held (for example efforts to recruit his successor, who in fact was appointed at the meeting). We see no reason to depart from the dictum stated so long ago in Porter. Absent prejudice, why should an employer be entitled to refuse a withdrawal submitted before the effective date stated in the resignation? (Cf. California Teachers Assn. v. Governing Board (1977) 70 Cal. App.3d 833, 843 [139 Cal. Rptr. 155].) We therefore hold that, unless valid enactments provide otherwise, an employee is entitled to withdraw a resignation if she or he does so (1) before its effective date, (2) before it has been accepted, and (3) before the appointing power acts in reliance on the resignation. To the extent they are inconsistent with views expressed in this opinion Hamm v. City of Santa Ana, supra, 273 Cal. App.2d 84 and People v. Marsh, supra, 30 Cal. App. 424 are disapproved. Because the order sustaining the board's demurrer was improper, the judgment of dismissal is reversed.