Supreme Court of California

Court of Appeals judgment is reversed where the "actual dedication" referred to in Public Resources Code sec. 5540 differs from the "dedication" referred to in sec. 5565, and legislative intent supports a finding that property is not deemed automatically dedicated for park or open space purposes upon acquisition by operation of sec. 5565. Instead, an interest in real property is actually dedicated under sec. 5540 when a resolution of dedication is formally adopted by the district's board of directors. Defendant's board of directors had not adopted a resolution actually dedicating the property in dispute for park or open space purposes, so the land was not subject to the restrictions on conveyance set forth in sec. 5540.

Appellate Information

• Decided 05/14/2009
• Published 05/14/2009

Judges

• WERDEGAR, J.

Court

• Supreme Court of California

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• Joe S. Rank, County Counsel, Pamela J. Walls, Assistant County Counsel, Patti F. Smith, Deputy Counsel;  Reed Smith, Paul D. Fogel, Dennis Peter Maio, San Francisco;  and Anita C. Willis, Culver City, for Defendant and Appellant., Steven M. Woodside, County Counsel (Sonoma), Phyllis C. Gallagher, Deputy County Counsel;  Ted C. Radosevich, Oakland, and Carol R. Victor for East Bay Regional Park District, Midpeninsula Regional OpenSpace District, Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District, Marin County Open Space District, Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District and Napa County Regional Park and Open Space District as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant., Gerard Ste. Marie, Wildomar, in pro.per., for Plaintiff and Respondent., No appearance for Real Party in Interest and Respondent.