California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
JIMMIE D. BONANDER et al.,
Plaintiffs and Appellants,
v.
TOWN OF TIBURON et al.,
Defendants and Respondents.
A112539
(MarinCounty
Super. Ct. No. CV 052703)
This appeal presents the question whether a lawsuit challenging a special assessment levied under the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 (Sts. & Hy. Code,[1] § 10000 et seq.) for failure to comply with Proposition 218 is subject to special procedural rules applicable to â€
Description
This appeal presents the question whether a lawsuit challenging a special assessment levied under the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 (Sts. and Hy. Code, S 10000 et seq.) for failure to comply with Proposition 218 is subject to special procedural rules applicable to "validation actions." Appellants are property owners who sought to invalidate a special assessment imposed by respondent Town of Tiburon (Town) to cover the costs of moving overhead utility lines underground. Appellants claimed the special assessment violates Proposition 218 because, among other things, the amount of the assessment exceeds any "special benefits" conferred on their properties. The trial court dismissed the action because appellants failed to publish notice of the action and file proof of publication within 60 days after the filing of the complaint, a procedural requirement that must be satisfied to confer jurisdiction in a validation action filed by an interested person. (See Code Civ. Proc., S 863.)
Court conclude that appellants' lawsuit constitutes a validation action subject to the procedural requirements governing such actions contained in section 860 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure. Court also conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding no good cause for appellants' failure to publish notice of their action within the required time period. Accordingly, court affirm the judgment.
