Atlanta Independent School System v. Lane

• Decision Date: 08 April 1996
• Docket Number: Nos. S96A0160,S96X0162 and S96A0163,s. S96A0160
• Citation: 266 Ga. 657,469 S.E.2d 22
• Parties: , 108 Ed. Law Rep. 1297 ATLANTA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL SYSTEM et al. v. LANE. LANE v. ATLANTA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL SYSTEM et al. ATLANTA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL SYSTEM et al. v. The CITY OF ATLANTA.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

Page 22

469 S.E.2d 22

266 Ga. 657, 108 Ed. Law Rep. 1297

ATLANTA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL SYSTEM et al. v. LANE.

LANE v. ATLANTA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL SYSTEM et al.

ATLANTA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL SYSTEM et al. v. The CITY OF ATLANTA.

Nos. S96A0160, S96X0162 and S96A0163.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

April 8, 1996.

Reconsideration Denied May 10, 1996

Emmet J. Bondurant, II, Jane E. Fahey, Bondurant, Mixson & Elmore, Atlanta, Amy Totenberg, Atlanta, Joseph D. Young, Holland & Knight, Atlanta, for Atlanta Independent School System.

Robert J. Proctor, Jule W. Felton, Jr., Proctor, Felton & Atkinson, Atlanta, Joseph L. Kelly, Atlanta, for Lane.

M. Hakim Hilliard, Atlanta, Paul H. Schwartz, Bondurant, Mixson & Elmore, LLP, Atlanta, in No. S96A0160.

Amy Totenberg, Atlanta, Jane E. Fahey, Paul H. Schwartz, Bondurant, Mixson & Elmore, LLP, Atlanta, Joiava Thomas, Assistant City Attorney, Atlanta, M. Hakim Hilliard, Atlanta, in No. S96X0162.

Clifford E. Hardwick, IV, City Attorney, Joe M. Harris, Assistant City Attorney, Joiava Thomas, Assistant City Attorney, Atlanta, for other interested parties.

Joe M. Harris, Assistant City Attorney, Clifford E. Hardwick, IV, City Attorney, Joiava Thomas, Assistant City Attorney, Atlanta, M. Hakim Hilliard, Atlanta, for City of Atlanta.

Heard, Leverett, Phelps, Weaver & Campbell, E. Freeman Leverett, amicus curiae.

CARLEY, Justice.

The City of Atlanta (City) and the Atlanta Independent School System (System) entered into an "Agreement For Sharing Revenue," whereby the System received an amount equal to 30% of the City's local option sales tax receipts. Mr. William Lane, in his capacity as a City resident and taxpayer, brought suit challenging the validity of this agreement and also seeking mandamus relief as to the repayment of amounts previously paid thereunder. The City filed its own suit challenging the validity of its agreement with the System. The suits were consolidated and the trial court held that the agreement was violative of the Georgia Constitution. However, the trial court denied mandamus relief as to the issue of repayment. It is from this order of the trial court that the System appeals against the City and Lane and that Lane cross-appeals against the City and the System.

CASE NUMBERS S96A0160 and S96A0163.

1. Relying upon Kelly v. City of Atlanta, 217 Ga.App. 365, 366(1), 457 S.E.2d 675 (1995), the System urges that it has a viable res judicata or estoppel by judgment defense to Lane's and the City's claim that the agreement is violative of the Georgia Constitution.

With regard to constitutional issues, this court has exclusive jurisdiction over all cases involving construction of the Constitution of the State of Georgia and of the United States and all cases in which the constitutionality of a law, ordinance, or constitutional provision has been called into question. Art. VI, Sec. VI, Par. II(1) of the Georgia Constitution. The appeal in Kelly was filed in this court, but was transferred to the Court of Appeals. That transfer merely represents this court's determination that Kelly was not a case involving a constitutional issue over which we had exclusive jurisdiction.

There are a number of reasons why a case can fail to come within this court's exclusive jurisdiction under Art. VI, Sec. VI, Par. II(1) of our state constitution. The constitutional issue that is raised on appeal may not be one which is within our exclusive jurisdiction. Unless the issue raised on appeal relates either to the constitutional construction or to the constitutionality of a law, ordinance or constitutional provision, jurisdiction is in the Court of Appeals. Art. VI, Sec. V, Par. III of the Georgia Constitution. Although the constitutional issue raised on appeal may be one which otherwise would be within our exclusive jurisdiction, that constitutional issue may already have been resolved by this court. Phillips v. State, 229 Ga. 313, 191 S.E.2d 61 (1972). Also, this court does not have exclusive appellate jurisdiction over a case where the constitutional issue asserted on appeal has not been raised in and ruled upon by the trial court. Senase v. State, 258 Ga. 592, 372 S.E.2d 813 (1988).

There may be other reasons why a case fails to come within this court's exclusive jurisdiction and must be transferred to the Court of Appeals. Therefore, any decision which holds that such a transfer represents this court's determination that no constitutional issue in the case has merit is erroneous and is hereby overruled. See, e.g., Kelly v. City of Atlanta, supra at 366(1), 457 S.E.2d 675; Ryals v. State, 215 Ga.App. 51, 52(1), 449 S.E.2d 865 (1994); Threatt v. State, 211 Ga.App. 630(1), 440 S.E.2d 61 (1994); Nash v. State, 179 Ga.App. 702, 703(3), 347 S.E.2d 651 (1986); George v. State, 175 Ga.App. 229(1), 333 S.E.2d 141 (1985). If this court has exclusive jurisdiction over a case pursuant to Art. VI, Sec. VI, Par. II(1) of the Georgia Constitution, we will not transfer that case, but will issue a decision addressing the merits of the constitutional issues raised therein. However, the appeal in Kelly was transferred because the trial court had made no ruling on any constitutional issue. Kelly, supra at 366(1), 457 S.E.2d 675. It follows that Kelly does not constitute authority on the issue of whether the trial court correctly held that the agreement between the City and the System is violative of the Georgia Constitution.

2. Art. VIII, Sec. VI, Par. I(a) of the Georgia Constitution provides for the financing of this state's school systems through the levying of local ad valorem taxes which are not to exceed a 20-mill rate. The predecessor to this constitutional provision was construed as establishing an exclusive financing method, such that school systems subject to its mandate were prohibited from receiving funds from any local tax source other than such ad valorem taxes as were raised in accordance therewith. City of Lithonia v. DeKalb County Bd. of Ed., 231 Ga. 150, 153, 200 S.E.2d 698 (1973). The framers of Art. VIII, Sec. VI, Par. I(a) are presumed to be aware of the interpretation which this court placed upon the predecessor provision. McKnight v. City of Decatur, 200 Ga. 611, 616(2), 37 S.E.2d 915 (1946). Art. VIII, Sec. VI, Par. I(a) materially differs from its predecessor only in that its mandate now broadly extends to "each school system" in this state. It is an established rule of constitutional construction that, where a provision has received a settled judicial interpretation and is then incorporated into a new constitution, it will be presumed to have been retained with the knowledge of the previous construction and the courts will be bound to adhere thereto. Thompson v. Talmadge, 201 Ga. 867, 885(2), 41 S.E.2d 883 (1947). It follows that Art. VIII, Sec. VI, Par. I(a) establishes an exclusive financing method, such that "each school system" in this state is prohibited from receiving funds from any local tax source other than such ad valorem taxes as were raised in accordance therewith.

Whether the System qualifies for the exemption from the 20-mill cap on ad valorem taxation authorized by Art. VIII, Sec. VI, Par. I(c) is immaterial here. Compare Board of Public Ed. & Orphanage For Bibb County v. Zimmerman, 231 Ga. 562, 203 S.E.2d 178 (1974); Ingram v. Payton, 222 Ga. 503, 150 S.E.2d 825 (1966). Art. VIII, Sec. VI, Par. I(a) limits the System to ad valorem taxes levied in accordance therewith as its exclusive local tax revenue source, regardless of whether, in determining the amount of its revenue from that exclusive source, the System may be limited to a 20-mill rate. The System's reliance upon Featherstone v. Norman, 170 Ga. 370, 153 S.E. 58 (1930) and Green & Milam v. State Revenue Comm., 188 Ga. 442, 4 S.E.2d 144 (1939) as authority for a contrary holding is misplaced. Those cases deal with the issue of the constitutionality of the state income tax statute and do not involve the construction of Art. VIII, Sec. VI, Par. I(a).

3. The System urges that the agreement does not violate Art. VIII, Sec. VI, Par. I(a) because it requires only the payment of an amount equal to 30% of the City's local option sales tax receipts, rather than the direct payment of that portion of the actual tax receipts. However, this distinction is immaterial. What is controlling is that the agreement is for the City's payment and the System's receipt of funds from a local tax source other than ad...