California Court of Appeal

In case involving plaintiff's statutory obligation to increase the supply of affordable housing as part of redevelopment, judgment for plaintiff granting validation action to validate a 2002 settlement agreement and a 2003 resolution to issue $40 million in tax allocation bonds is reversed where the court erred in granting the validation action since: 1) the settlement agreement does not qualify as a contract under Government Code section 53511; and 2) the proposed $40 million in tax allocation bonds would exceed plaintiff's limitation on bonded debt secured by tax increment revenue for the redevelopment project.

Appellate Information

• Decided 07/26/2007
• Published 07/26/2007

Judges

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• Western Center on Law & Poverty, Deanna R. Kitamura, Richard Rothschild, Los Angeles, Greg Spiegel, Lynn Martinez, Vallejo;  Michael Rawson, Deborah Collins, Vallejo;  Inland Counties Legal Services, Robert S. Roddick, San Francisco, C. Cass Watters, Alta Loma;  Briggs Law Corporation and Cory J. Briggs, Upland, for Defendants and Appellants., Best Best & Krieger, Victor L. Wolf, Kevin K. Randolph and Danielle G. Sakai, Riverside, for Plaintiff and Respondent., Mahoney Coppenrath & Jaffee, Pachulski Stang Ziehl Young Jones & Weintraub, James E. Mahoney, Daryl G. Parker, Los Angeles;  McDonough Holland & Allen, Joseph E. Coomes, Jr. and Richard E. Brandt, Sacramento, for Defendant and Respondent., Kirkland & Ellis, Jeffrey S. Davidson, Eric W. Hagen, Mark T. Cramer, Los Angeles;  and John C. Eastman, Redondo Beach, for The Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Appellants.