Fullerton Union High School Dist. v. Riles
| Citation | 188 Cal.Rptr. 897,139 Cal.App.3d 369 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals |
| Decision Date | 24 January 1983 |
| Parties | , 8 Ed. Law Rep. 1027 FULLERTON UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Wilson RILES, Superintendent of Public Instruction, et al., Defendants and Respondents. Civ. 26040. |
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, David A. Cathcart, Dennis A. Gladwell and Susan Erburu Reardon, Los Angeles, for plaintiffs and appellants.
George Deukmejian, Atty. Gen., Thomas E. Warriner, Asst. Atty. Gen., Anne S. Pressman, Louis Verdugo, Jr., and Richard J. Magasin, Deputy Attys. Gen., for defendants and respondents.
Plaintiff Fullerton Union High School District (Fullerton) seeks to compel repayment of over $3.2 million taken by the California State Department of Education (Department) from Fullerton 1 by the process of an unconsented to deduction of this sum from "scheduled apportionments" (payment of State funds) due Fullerton from the Department. The Department's withholding action additionally reduced Fullerton's "base revenue limit" by $786,695 for the fiscal year 1979-1980 and each succeeding school year with consequent profound and negative effects on Fullerton's vocational education program instituted in reliance upon availability of these funds. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court refused to apply estoppel principles to bar the Department's recapture of funds, found no denial of due process or equal protection in the unilateral recapturing process and no duty to return money deducted from Fullerton's apportionment. Fullerton appeals.
Fullerton is a duly organized local educational agency. It receives the bulk of its operating revenue from state funds apportioned according to the average daily attendance (ADA) of the students within the district. The Local Assistance Bureau of the Department apportions ADA funds to local school districts throughout the State of California.
Before 1967, under Education Code section 11051, no California high school district could be credited with more than one average day of attendance for each day a student attended school. In 1967 section 11051 was amended and renumbered section 46140. This amendment provided:
"No pupil in a high school, other than a pupil in a vocational educational program occupationally organized and conducted under federal approval, evening high school, continuing high school, or continuation education class, shall be credited with more than one day of attendance in any calendar day and nothing in this article shall be construed to the contrary." (Italics added.)
Since the 1967 amendment, the Department has construed the amended section as follows: "pupils in a vocational education program occupationally organized and conducted under federal approval " (italics added) means that such extra ADA credits must be limited to those high school students attending vocational education classes in "Regional Occupational Centers" (ROCs) or "Regional Occupational Programs" (ROPs).
In the latter part of 1975, the Department discovered the additional ADA credit had, since 1971, been claimed by the Garden Grove School District (Garden Grove) and paid by the Department to that district although the vocational students were not attending ROP or ROC programs. Because of the method of reporting ADA, the Department did not detect from its examination of Garden Grove's attendance records that Garden Grove had successfully claimed the additional ADA funding under section 46140.
In 1976, the Local Assistance Bureau requested the opinion of the Department's legal office as to its authority, under section 46140 to pay additional ADA credits for students participating in federally approved vocational education programs which were not part of ROCs or ROPs. On July 16, 1976, the legal office issued its opinion which concluded the 1967 amendment allowed school districts to claim more than one apportionment day per day of attendance for "pupils in a vocational education program occupationally organized and conducted under federal approval," as defined in section 46140, even though such program was not a ROC or ROP. 2 The Department took no action to publicize the opinion, its reasoning or conclusions and did not follow it, except in the case of Garden Grove. Instead, the Department continued to publicly maintain its position section 46140 did not permit additional ADA credits for programs which were not ROCs or ROPs.
In November 1976, Fullerton became aware section 46140 might allow more than one apportionment day of credit for attendance by high school students in vocational education classes which were federally approved and supported but did not happen to be conducted in a ROC or ROP. Fullerton immediately began gathering detailed data for the 1976-1977 school year in order to claim the additional ADA credits. As part of the enormous compilation of data, each student's class records had to be manually reviewed to determine whether the pupil was taking enough courses, in addition to the vocational education program, to meet the minimum day standard required for federal funding. Fullerton hired a full-time and a part-time person to assist in the data collection.
Fullerton was busily engaged gathering this data when on December 1, 1976, the Department issued the following letter:
The vigorous activities begun by Fullerton were suspended because of the unmistakeably discouraging words of Ross' letter. Fullerton's evidence is uncontroverted: Had it not stopped its data gathering, Fullerton would have filed a timely (not an amended) application. The Department concedes had such application been filed the state funding laws then in force would have entitled Fullerton to receive and retain the sums it here seeks to recover.
On April 14, 1977, Assembly Bill No. 1641 was introduced and enacted (effective Aug. 1, 1977). This statute (amended § 46140) limited specifically the availability of more than one apportionment day credit to high school students attending federally funded and supported vocational education programs conducted in ROCs and ROPs. 3 At the same legislative session section 46140.5 was added to the Education Code. 4 With this authorization, the Department has continued to this day to make extra ADA payments to Garden Grove.
In January 1978, Fullerton submitted an amended 1976-1977 attendance report. This amendment was specifically authorized by section 41341, which provides that such reports may be amended within three years of their filing. Fullerton sought by its amended report approximately $1,420,000 for ADA credits for the 1976-1977 school year for students enrolled in federally approved and supported vocational education classes which were not ROPs or ROCs. Fullerton's claim was also based upon the new Education Code section 46140.5.
On September 20, 1978, the Department's legal office prepared a second opinion, interpreting section 46140, as amended in 1977, section 46140.5 and section 41341. The Department's legal advisers concluded under section 41341 school districts could file amended reports and claim the additional ADA credit as sought by Fullerton in its January 1978 amended report.
On September 28, 1978, Fullerton submitted a second and further attendance report with the Local Assistance Bureau, covering the 1975-1976 school year. Fullerton sought approximately $1,815,000 for additional ADA credits for students enrolled in federally approved and supported vocational education classes which were not ROCs or ROPs. Such claims were based upon the same authority as set forth in their January 1978 report for the 1976-1977 school year.
On June 8, 1979, in conformance with the legal opinion of September 1978, the Local Assistance Bureau notified Fullerton that pursuant to Fullerton's amended attendance reports, corrective apportionments for the 1975-1976 and 1976-1977 school years would be made, adding $1,816,515 for the 1975-1976 year and $1,423,539 for the 1976-1977 year. However, the Department also stated that pending legislation, if passed, would "clarify" Education Code sections 46140 and 46140.5 on which Fullerton had relied in claiming and receiving additional ADA apportionment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Harris
...888, 547 P.2d 1000; Palermo v. Stockton Theatres, Inc. (1948) 32 Cal.2d 53, 66, 195 P.2d 1; Fullerton Union High School Dist. v. Riles (1983) 139 Cal.App.3d 369, 384, 188 Cal.Rptr. 897.) This rule cannot be applied in this case because there is no nonconstitutional ground in support of defe......
-
California Restaurant Assn. v. Henning
...888, 547 P.2d 1000; Palermo v. Stockton Theatres, Inc. (1948) 32 Cal.2d 53, 66, 195 P.2d 1; Fullerton Union High School Dist. v. Riles (1983) 139 Cal.App.3d 369, 384, 188 Cal.Rptr. 897), we note that plaintiff's action for declaratory and injunctive relief is an acceptable means of challeng......
-
Marshall v. Bankers Life and Cas. Co.
...460, 474, 267 P.2d 777; McKinney v. Kull (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 951, 955-956, 173 Cal.Rptr. 696; Fullerton Union High School Dist. v. Riles (1983) 139 Cal.App.3d 369, 383, 188 Cal.Rptr. 897; 9 Witkin, supra, § 288, p. 300.) However, if only one reasonable inference can be drawn from the evid......
-
Blix St. Records, Inc. v. Cassidy
...a reviewing court is without power to substitute its deductions from those of the trial court"]; Fullerton Union High School Dist. v. Riles (1983) 139 Cal.App.3d 369, 383, 188 Cal.Rptr. 897 [upholding determination of equitable estoppel]; 9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (5th ed. 2008) Appeal, §§ 3......