Harris, 090616 CAAGO, AGO 15-1101

• Case Date: September 06, 2016
• Court: California

KAMALA D. HARRIS Attorney General LAWRENCE M. DANIELS Deputy Attorney General AGO 15-1101 No. 15-1101 California Attorney General Opinions Office of the Attorney General State of California September 6, 2016          Proposed relator DEBORAH ROBERTSON has requested leave to sue proposed defendant EDWARD PALMER in quo warranto to remove him from the public office of Rialto city council member on the ground that he did not reside in the city at the time of his reelection as required by law.          CONCLUSION          Because proposed relator's allegations regarding Edward Palmer's eligibility to serve on the Rialto city council do not present a substantial issue of fact or law requiring judicial resolution, and because allowing this lawsuit to proceed would not be in the public interest, leave to sue in quo warranto is DENIED.          ANALYSIS          Proposed relator Deborah Robertson (hereafter "Relator") has asked the Attorney General for permission to pursue a quo warranto action in court against Edward Palmer (hereafter "Palmer") to remove him as a member of the Rialto city council.1 Relator asserts that Palmer is ineligible to hold this public office, and that he should therefore be removed from it, because he was not a legal resident of Rialto at the time of his reelection to the city council in 2012, as state law requires. Upon close inspection and examination, we conclude that Relator's allegations do not merit granting this application.          Background          Palmer's sworn declaration and supporting documentation provide the following chronology:

• In 1986, Palmer purchased a residence at 209 Coral Tree Drive in Rialto (the Coral Tree property) and lived there with his then-wife and their children.

• In 1992, after a divorce, Palmer stopped living at the Coral Tree property, and bought a residence at 5674 Sycamore Avenue in an unincorporated area outside Rialto (the Sycamore property), but near the Coral Tree property. Palmer stayed at the Sycamore property to be near his children when he did not have custody of them.

• In 1994, Palmer purchased the property at 229 North Riverside Avenue in Rialto (the Riverside property). Palmer states that, since 1994, he has continuously maintained and used the upstairs part of the Riverside property as a residence, even when also residing at other addresses.

• In 1995, Palmer, an attorney, started using the downstairs portion of the Riverside property as his law office. During this time, Palmer would stay at the Riverside property whenever he was not caring for his children.

• Eleven years later, in 2006, Palmer sold the Coral Tree property to his son and daughter-in-law. Having remarried the year before, Palmer then moved into the Sycamore property with his new wife and baby daughter, while often staying at the Riverside property because his law office was there.

• In 2007, Palmer, who was now experiencing marital difficulties with his current wife, moved back into the Coral Tree property with his now adult son and daughter-in-law. Even so, Palmer continued to often stay at the Riverside property for convenience.

• In 2008, Palmer was elected to the Rialto City Council. Palmer states that he recorded the Coral Tree property as his address on his nomination papers because he considered it to be his domicile at the time.

• In 2009, the Coral Tree property was foreclosed upon. According to Palmer, he had stopped residing there and moved to the Riverside property "on a more full-time basis," while still living apart from his wife and working on their marriage. Palmer states that he would go to the Sycamore property almost every night for dinner and to put his daughter to bed for the night, and would then return to the Riverside property.

• In 2010, Palmer changed his residential address with the registrar of voters from the Coral Tree property to the Riverside property as he now considered that latter address to be his domicile or legal residence.

• In 2012, Palmer was reelected to the Rialto City Council. On his nomination papers and California voter registration form, he designated the Riverside property as his current legal residence and home address.

         For her part, Relator claims—upon her information and belief—that Palmer did not reside at the Riverside property/business address at the time of his 2012 reelection, but was instead living at the Sycamore address, outside Rialto, with his wife and daughter. Relator also argues that, in any event, the Riverside property was located within an area rezoned for office services in 1983, and thus could not be legally claimed as a residence address for election purposes in 2012.          Palmer responds that Relator's claim that he was living outside Rialto at the time of his 2012 reelection is unsupported, and contradicted by his own evidence and declaration that his legal residence at that time was the Riverside property. As to the zoning issue, Palmer submits a 2011 letter from the Rialto City Administrator to the San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters indicating that the Riverside property may be lawfully maintained as a residence under the Rialto Municipal Code.          Against this backdrop, we turn to the merits of the parties' contentions.          Applicable Law          Code of Civil Procedure section 803 provides: "An action may be brought by the attorney-general...