Decisions in a City's Validation Action and Family Law Matters

By FindLaw Staff on April 21, 2010 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

City of Cerritos v. Cerritos Taxpayers Ass'n, No. B214530, involved a validation action brought by a city and public agencies under section 860 of the Code of Civ. Proc. to determine the validity of a financing agreement involving senior and low to moderate income public housing development.

In rejecting the challenges brought by city taxpayers and other community groups, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of the city and public agencies in holding that the purchase and renovation of the property was a proper use of the low-moderate income housing fund, and that Article XXXIV of the California Constitution does not require submission of the project to a vote of the electorate. Furthermore, the transaction is not invalidated by reason of the district's lease of a property without complying with Gov. Code section 54222 and there is no merit to the taxpayers' claim that the agency failed to comply with section 33433. Lastly, the court held that common law doctrine of "incompatibility of office" does not apply.

In re Andy G., No. B215772, concerned a challenge to juvenile court's orders adjudging a father's two-year-old son a dependent child of the juvenile court, refusing to release the child to the father, and ordering the father to attend sexual abuse counseling for perpetrators. In rejecting the father's sufficiency of evidence challenge, among others, the court affirmed the orders in holding that there is sufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's findings that the child is at risk of sexual abuse based on the father's sexual abuse of the child's 12- and 14-year-old half-sisters.

Related Resources: