evidence of three mailboxes visible from the street, three separate and published telephone listings, three garages, *446 and at least one adult in each, of three units paying taxes to the city, held not sufficient to support conclusion that the city had knowingly permitted an illegal three family unit in a two family area to continue over long period of time
How later courts described this case
- evidence of three mailboxes visible from the street, three separate and published telephone listings, three garages, *446 and at least one adult in each, of three units paying taxes to the city, held not sufficient to support conclusion that the city had knowingly permitted an illegal three family unit in a two family area to continue over long period of time
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Dissenting Opinion by Judge
Williams, Jr. :
I must respectfully dissent. Although I .support the reluctance of the majority to extend this litigation, I am compelled to disagree with the contention that we can resolve a question not addressed by either lower tribunal. Specifically because the .theory and fact of a vested right claim differ from that of a prior non-conforming use action, and because the property owner’s burden of proof is different in each action, I opine that a legal issue first decided by this Court must perforce be based on latent findings of fact. Such factual resolutions, however inferential, are beyond our scope of review. I would remand to the lower court and direct it to come to a reviewable conclusion on the vested right question.