With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". holding, the Gorman court reasoned: as a condition precedent to the enactment of the ordinance in question the legislature required under the provisions of section 16-701, supra, that a petition be presented to the city commission signed by the owners of not less than one-half in value of the property in the area sought to be annexed as shown by the last assessment and that said area must be contiguous to the city. Id. at 64, 216 P.2d at 403-04 (emphasis added). Therefore, according to the court, the admitted failure to satisfy the requirement of contiguity in A.R.S. § 9-471 (A) was also a failure to meet a condition precedent, and thus the City of Phoenix never possessed jurisdiction to annex. Id.; see also City of Erlanger v. Am. Isowall Corp., 607 S.W.2d 128, 131-32 (Ky.Ct.App.1980) (<HOLDING>); People ex rel. Karns v. Village of

A: holding that a failure to comply with sections requiring contiguous property or consent resulted in void annexation ordinances
B: holding insureds failure to comply with notice provision in insurance policy resulted in no coverage for a newly acquired car
C: holding that failure to comply with rule requiring notice of sheriffs sale requires voiding of sale
D: holding that dismissal for failure to comply with discovery orders is on the merits
A.