Cherrie v. Greater Nanticoke School Dist.
| Decision Date | 02 September 1966 |
| Docket Number | 12 |
| Citation | 40 Pa. D. & C.2d 739 |
| Parties | Cherrie v. Greater Nanticoke School District |
| Court | Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court |
October term, 1966.
Albert N. Danoff and Solomon Lubin, for plaintiffs.
Bernard J. Kotulak, for defendant.
Adjudication.
This is an action in equity brought by residents and owners of property situated in Newport Township, Luzerne County, Pa. Plaintiffs are taxpayers who complain against the final budget adopted on June 30, 1966, by defendant, the Greater Nanticoke Area, a reorganized school district. Said budget included a separate assessment in the amount of 8 mills on the taxpayers of Newport Township for general obligation debt service.
Plaintiffs challenge the propriety of the budget adopted by defendant for the fiscal period July 1, 1966, to June 30, 1967, and the related action thereto. They seek to restrain by injunction, preliminary and perpetual, the levying of the separate assessment in the amount of 8 mills on the taxpayers of Newport Township, pursuant to the adoption of the aforementioned budget by defendant. Plaintiffs also seek to restrain the collection of the aforesaid separate 8 mills tax. They request the amendment of the aforesaid budget and restraint against the levying and collection of the aforesaid separate assessment on the taxpayers of Newport Township, which they allege to be not in accordance with legal requirement.
Subsequent to the complaint filed July 26, 1966, both counsel of record entered into a stipulation which expressly stated that its content should be in lieu of all pleadings, both complaint and answer.
No testimony was presented, and the facts of record were agreed to in the aforementioned stipulation. It was agreed there were no facts in dispute, and that only a question of law was involved for the court's determination.
It was also stipulated that the same questions submitted for determination would be raised in a hearing on a preliminary or permanent injunction. It was further stipulated that one decision would represent the court's final determination on the merits.
The stipulated issue is as follows:
Whether debt contracted for operating expenses for a period of years prior to September 12, 1961, evidenced by the funding and refunding bonds issued prior to September 12, 1961, and further evidenced by refunding bonds issued after September 12, 1961, shall be an obligation upon the taxpayers of the component school district only which issued such bonds, or shall these refunding bonds be an obligation upon all the taxpayers of the Greater Nanticoke Area School District, pursuant to the Pennsylvania statute, which provides:
" All obligations of any component former school district evidenced by funding bonds issued after September 12, 1961, for the purpose of funding unfunded debt contracted for current operating expenses, shall continue to be an obligation of the taxable property within such component school district. . . ."
In general, specific findings of fact are essential to a valid decree in equity under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1517. A reading of the rule and its interpretation appears to make permissive a statement of the pertinent facts admitted, instead of making findings of fact within the present circumstances. However, in the interest of greater clarity of expression of the undisputed facts, we make the following
1. Plaintiffs, to wit, Joseph and Edna Cherrie, 69 Roberts Street, Sheatown, Pa., and Edward A. and Florence Sowa, 43 Charles Street, Sheatown, Pa., are residents and owners of real estate situate in Newport Township, Luzerne County, Pa., and have paid and in the future will pay taxes duly assessed against them as the owners thereof, and they bring this action in behalf of themselves and all other taxpayers similarly situated, since the number of taxpayers are so numerous as to make it impractical for all of them to be joined as parties.
2. Defendant is the Greater Nanticoke Area School District, a reorganized school district consisting of school districts formerly in Conyngham Township, Nanticoke City, Newport Township, and Plymouth Township, all in Luzerne County, Pa., with its principal office at Nanticoke High School, East Main Street, Nanticoke, Pa.
3. On June 30, 1966, defendant adopted its final budget and taxing resolutions attendant thereto for the fiscal period July 1, 1966, to June 30, 1967.
4. Said budget included a separate assessment in the amount of 8 mills on the taxpayers of Newport Township for general obligation debt service. A copy of the manner in which said amount was determined, compilation of the various bond issues of the component school district, and other relevant information is contained in exhibit " A" to the complaint and is incorporated into the record. All proceedings in the Court of Quarter Sessions of Luzerne County dealing with various bond issues set forth in exhibit " A" are incorporated by reference into the record.
5. The aforesaid separate 8 mills assessment was included by defendant pursuant to the School District Reorganization Act of August 8, 1963, P. L. 564, 24 PS § 2-298(b) 1 (Pocket Parts).
6. The bond issues of Newport Township School District, after September 12, 1961, consisted of the following:
(a) November 15, 1961: a refunding issue in the amount of $ 34,000;
(b) November 1, 1962; a refunding issue in the amount of $ 32,000, combined with an issue of $ 103,-000 for funding unfunded debt, for a total issue of $ 135,000;
(c) November 1, 1963: a refunding issue in the amount of $ 50,000;
(d) December 1, 1964: a refunding issue in the amount of $ 48,000;
(e) November 1, 1965: a refunding issue in the amount of $ 54,000.
7. All of the aforesaid bond issues, except for $ 103,-000 issued November 1, 1962, constituted refunding issues of floating debt contracted and incurred for a period of years prior to September 12, 1961. The aforesaid bond issues, beginning with November 1, 1963, also included refunding of that portion of the $ 103,-000 which became due in those years.
8. Immediate and irreparable loss will result to plaintiffs and others similarly situated and to defendant if prompt disposition of this matter is not made.
9. Plaintiffs are without an adequate remedy at law.
Although none of the parties to this action question that equity has jurisdiction, it is, nevertheless, our duty to inquire into the existence of jurisdiction: Harris-Walsh, Inc. v Dickson City Borough, 420 Pa. 259, 263.
Our reading of the School District Reorganization Act does not reveal any statutory procedure provided by the legislature for the relief here sought. Assuming, arguendo, such statutory procedure was available, it need not be followed if it is inadequate to the task of resolving plaintiffs' objection or its pursuit will cause irreparable harm: Bliss Excavating Company v. Luzerne County, 418 Pa. 446, 451.
The stipulation of the parties as to immediate and irreparable loss and the lack of an adequate remedy at law is confirmed by judicial scrutiny. A ripe controversy has been generated by the challenged assessment levied. We do not note the existence of any legal remedy which adequately and completely would give plaintiffs the relief to which they allege they are entitled.
Equity's jurisdiction to adjudicate the invalidity of taxation for want of power to tax continues to endure. See Young Men's Christian Association v. Reading, 402 Pa. 592. We do not determine the instant facts to merely challenge an overassessment. The very power to levy and collect the assessment made is realistically in issue.
The official action already taken under the statute is of such nature and extent as to confer equity with jurisdiction to resolve whether or not the collection of taxes should be restrained: Young Men's Christian Association v. Reading, supra, at page 598.
We have indicated the lack of statutory remedy. Within the circumstantial context of this case, we note no remedy at law as certain, prompt and efficient as the remedy in equity. We, therefore, determine that for the purpose of complete justice, the jurisdiction of equity is not precluded.
The circumstances presented for judicial determination involve several bond issues of Newport Township after September 12, 1961. All issues, except for $ 103,-000, issued November 1, 1962, constituted refunding issues of a floating debt contracted and incurred for a period of years prior to September 12, 1961. The bond issues involved, beginning with November 1, 1963, also included refunding of that portion of the $ 103,000 which became due in those years.
In essence, plaintiffs concede that the aforementioned $ 103,000 issue meets the statutory requirement of an exception which would impose this obligation upon the taxpayers of the former component school district. They maintain, however, that all of the other issues are " refunding" issues and should be the obligation of all the taxpayers of the Greater Nanticoke Area School District.
The reorganized defendant school district maintains, in effect, that all bond issues involved, whether funding or refunding, issued after September 12, 1961, remain the obligation of the component school district.
Our determination necessitates interpretation of the act of legislature as follows:
" Section 298. Property and Indebtedness and Rental Obligations of Former School Districts -- (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, all real and personal property indebtedness and rental obligations to an approved school building authority or nonprofit corporation, if any, of former school districts composing any...
To continue reading
Request your trial