Public Entity Preemption Refusal Validity

A contract for the sale of a property, concluded between the owner and a purchaser who had previously submitted a refusal to exercise a right of preemption, was challenged by the public entity holding that right, which argued the refusal was invalid because it was not formally served by a bailiff. The court rejected the appeal, holding that while formal service by a bailiff is typically required for official notifications, in the context of exercising a right of preemption, the law does not mandate such formality for a declaration of refusal, meaning the initial refusal, even if informally communicated, was sufficient to preserve the public entity's right to subsequently exercise its preemption upon being notified of the sale.