Coleman v. Campbell Cnty. Library Bd. of Trs.
Decision Date | 05 January 2018 |
Docket Number | NO. 2016-CA-001642-MR,2016-CA-001642-MR |
Citation | 547 S.W.3d 526 |
Parties | Charlie COLEMAN, John P. Roth Jr. and Erik Hermes, Appellants v. CAMPBELL COUNTY LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES, Appellee |
Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT: Timothy J. Eifler, Stephen A. Sherman, Louisville, Kentucky, Erica L. Horn, Madonna E. Schueler, Lexington, Kentucky, Brandon N. Voelker, Fort Mitchell, Kentucky.
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE: Jeffrey C. Mando, Louis D. Kelly, Covington, Kentucky.
BEFORE: COMBS, CLAYTON, AND D. LAMBERT, JUDGES.
Charlie Coleman, John P. Roth Jr. and Erik Hermes (hereinafter "the taxpayers") bring this appeal from the Campbell Circuit Court’s grant of summary judgment to the Campbell County Library Board of Trustees (hereinafter "the Board"). The primary issue is whether the holding of an opinion (hereinafter "the Opinion") of the Court of Appeals, which harmonized statutes relating to public library ad valorem tax rates, is to be applied retroactively or prospectively only.
Campbell Cty. Library Bd. , 475 S.W.3d at 47-48.
The case was remanded for proceedings consistent with the Opinion. The Kentucky Supreme Court denied the taxpayer’s motion for discretionary review.
The Board moved for summary judgment on the remaining counts of the taxpayers' complaint. The taxpayers filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. The circuit court entered an agreed order limiting briefing solely to the issue of whether the Opinion should be applied retroactively or prospectively only. Following a hearing, the circuit court entered an order in which it applied the three-factor test for retroactivity set forth in Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson , 404 U.S. 97, 106, 92 S.Ct. 349, 355, 30 L.Ed. 2d 296 (1971)disapproved of by Harper v. Virginia Dep't of Taxation , 509 U.S. 86, 113 S.Ct. 2510, 125 L.Ed. 2d 74 (1993), to hold that the Opinion harmonizing KRS 173.790 and KRS 132.023 was intended to be applied prospectively only. The taxpayers filed a motion to amend, alter or vacate the order. The motion was denied and this appeal by the taxpayers followed.
The taxpayers raise four arguments: (1) that the circuit court order is contrary to the Opinion and violates the law-of-the-case doctrine; (2) federal due process and Kentucky law require the taxpayers to be provided with meaningful retroactive relief; (3) the order renders KRS 173.790 ineffective for periods prior to the Opinion, thereby violating Kentucky’s separation of powers doctrine and; (4) even if prospective-only application was possible in this case, the circuit court erred in finding it justified here.
The taxpayers' first argument questions the trial court’s authority to determine that the Opinion is to be applied prospectively only. Because the Opinion does not expressly state that its holding is to be given prospective-only application, they contend the holding must apply both retroactively and prospectively, and, in the absence of any petition for rehearing or modification by the Board, this retroactive application has become the law of the case. Buckley v. Wilson , 177 S.W.3d 778, 781 (Ky. 2005) (footnotes omitted).
Williamson v. Commonwealth , 767 S.W.2d 323, 326 (Ky. 1989).
The pertinent portion of the Opinion states that Campbell Cty. Library Bd. , 475 S.W.3d at 48. The Opinion reverses the summary judgments and remands "for proceedings consistent with this Opinion[.]" Id.
The Board argues that statements elsewhere in the Opinion do expressly and unmistakably direct a prospective-only application of the Court’s holding, specifically the following passage discussing the principles of Wayne Public Library Board of Trustees v. Wayne County Fiscal Court , 572 S.W.2d 858 (Ky. 1978) :
In Wayne, the Supreme Court addressed a second attack on the constitutionality of the provisions of KRS Chapter 173 as pertains to the petition method of forming public library districts in Kentucky. As noted, that legislation was enacted in 1964. In upholding the statutes, the Supreme Court in Wayne noted that "[w]hen over two-thirds of the library districts in Kentucky are the children of these statutes, there can be no doubt that many important and valuable rights, obligations and services have vested." Id. at 859. That same logical common sense approach is also applicable to these cases now on appeal, notwithstanding that this Court has harmonized the statutes at issue.
Campbell Cty. Library Bd. , 475 S.W.3d at 48.
Although this passage may articulate policy grounds to support a prospective-only application, it does not provide an unambiguous directive to that effect.
The taxpayers argue that when an appellate opinion is silent, the silence speaks for retroactive application only and any contrary intention must be manifest. Kentucky jurisprudence "generally embrace[s] the idea that although legislation may only apply prospectively, judicial decisions generally apply retroactively." Branham v. Stewart , 307 S.W.3d 94, 102 (Ky. 2010) (citing United States v. Security Industrial Bank, 459 U.S. 70, 79, 103 S.Ct. 407, 74 L.Ed.2d 235 (1982) ). The taxpayers also rely on an opinion of the United States Supreme Court, Harper , supra , which states that "[w]hen this Court applies a rule of federal law to the parties before it, that rule is the controlling interpretation of federal law and must be given full retroactive effect in all cases still open on direct review and as to all events, regardless of whether such events predate or postdate the announcement of the rule." 509 U.S. at 97, 113 S.Ct. at 2517. But Harper is limited to the application of federal law only, and expressly acknowledges that state courts may fashion their own rules of retroactivity regarding state law. "Whatever freedom state courts may enjoy to limit the retroactive operation of their own interpretations of state law, cannot extend to their interpretations of federal law." Id. , 509 U.S. at 100, 113 S.Ct. at 2519 (citing Great Northern R. Co. v. Sunburst Oil & Refining Co., 287 U.S. 358, 364-66, 53 S.Ct. 145, 148-49, 77 L.Ed. 360 (1932) ) (internal citation omitted). Furthermore, Harper stands only for the proposition that, once a rule of federal law is applied to the parties in the case in which it was announced, it must be applied retroactively.
It does not address whether a newly-announced decision need be applied to the parties in the instant case. McKinney v. Pate , 20 F.3d 1550, 1565-66 (11th Cir. 1994).
The Opinion in this case did not expressly decide the issue of retroactive or prospective applicability, and directed the case back to the trial court for further proceedings. "[I]t was the trial court’s duty to interpret and apply the controlling appellate court decision." Buckley v. Wilson , 177 S.W.3d 778, 781 (Ky. 2005) (footnote omitted). Under Kentucky law, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Seum v. Bevin, 2017-CA-001695-MR
...of responsibility, free from risk of control, interference, or intimidation by other branches." Coleman v. Campbell County Library Board of Trustees , 547 S.W.3d 526, 533-34 (Ky. App. 2018), disc. rev. denied (Ky. June 6, 2018), cert. denied , ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 482, 202 L.Ed.2d 388 ......
-
Henderson v. Cameron
...of responsibility, free from risk of control, interference, or intimidation by other branches.Coleman v. Campbell County Library Board of Trustees, 547 S.W.3d 526, 533-34 (Ky. App. 2018) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Though his brief is mostly unintelligible, it appears ......
-
Mangine v. Mangine
...judge's decision was "arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal principles." Coleman v. Campbell Cty. Library Bd. of Trustees, 547 S.W.3d 526, 534 (Ky. App. 2018). If no abuse of discretion occurred, the award of attorney's fees will not be disturbed. Smith, 556 S.W.3d ......
-
Walker v. Commonwealth
...ofresponsibility, free from risk of control, interference, or intimidation by other branches.Coleman v. Campbell County Library Board of Trustees, 547 S.W.3d 526, 533-34 (Ky. App. 2018) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The sentencing order, even were it properly before us, ......