Independent School Dist. No. 1 of Tulsa County v. Board of County Com'rs of Tulsa County
Decision Date | 27 December 1983 |
Docket Number | No. 58755,58755 |
Citation | 674 P.2d 547 |
Parties | 15 Ed. Law Rep. 961, 1983 OK 123 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT # 1 OF TULSA COUNTY, Oklahoma, Independent School District # 2 of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, Independent School District # 3 of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, Independent School District # 5 of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, Independent School District # 9 of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, Appellees, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF the COUNTY OF TULSA, Oklahoma, and John F. Cantrell in his official capacity as County Treasurer of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, Appellants. |
Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Tulsa County; Robert F. Martin, District judge.
Appellants appeal injunctive and declaratory relief granted by summary judgment on Appellees' second and third cause of action in a suit brought to recover interest on certain invested tax funds. Appellants' motion for oral argument denied.
AFFIRMED.
David L. Moss, Dist. Atty., Dist. 14, David A. Carpenter, Asst. Dist. Atty., Tulsa, for appellants.
David L. Fist, J. Douglas Mann, Rosenstein, Fist & Ringold, Tulsa, for appellees.
The issue on appeal is whether public school districts are entitled to interest earned on local tax revenues attributable to public school districts. We hold that they are and affirm the judgment below. Appellants' motion for oral argument is denied.
The plaintiff-appellees, school districts, brought suit against the Board of County Commissioners and the County Treasurer of Tulsa County seeking (1) to recover all interest on state and local tax revenue apportioned to named plaintiff school districts earned during three years immediately prior to the filing of the lawsuit; (2) a declaratory judgment that the plaintiff school districts are entitled to the distribution of all interest earned on state and local tax revenue funds attributable to any of the plaintiffs held by the County Treasurer, at the time such tax revenues are apportioned and distributed by the County Treasurer; and (3) injunctive relief enjoining the County Treasurer and the Board of County Commissioners from disbursing to the Tulsa County General Fund or anyone other than the plaintiff school districts, interest earned on tax revenues attributable to the plaintiffs.
Both parties filed motions for summary judgment upon all three of the school districts' causes of action. The record shows that the parties entered and filed a joint stipulation of facts, which the District Court adopted as its findings. Within the stipulations the parties recognized that the County Treasurer receives a variety of local and state tax funds and other revenues which he is required on a monthly basis to apportion and distribute to local governmental units within Tulsa County. During the time prior to distribution the tax and revenue funds remain in the custody of the County Treasury who invests the monies in interest bearing accounts at the direction of the Board of County Commissioners.
The parties also stipulated to the fact that on February 25, 1976, the Board of County Commissioners passed a resolution directing the County Treasurer to distribute the entire interest amount earned on the deposited but unapportioned and undistributed, local tax and state tax and revenue funds to the Tulsa County General Fund, rather than to the units of local government within the county, such as the plaintiff school districts. It was further agreed that in calculating apportionment and distribution of these funds, "the County Treasurer does not apportion nor does he distribute to the plaintiffs any of the interest earned on such local tax and state tax and revenue funds which are attributable to the plaintiffs."
With respect to state taxes and revenues, the parties stipulated to the following statement which narrows the issue on appeal to the matter of local taxes:
The dispute centers on interpretation of Laws 1917, c. 221, p. 405, § 1, now 70 O.S.1981, § 691, which provides:
The County Treasurer shall immediately upon the passage and approval of this act place to the credit of the common school fund of the county for distribution, as all other common school funds, all the interest money now on hand accrued on the average daily balances of money deposited with banks in pursuance of the provisions of the county depository law: All such interest moneys hereafter collected shall at the close of each month be apportioned and credited to the common school fund of the county. (Emphasis added.)
The District Court granted summary judgment for the defendants as to the school districts' first cause of action seeking retroactive award of interest, 1 but granted judgment for the school districts on their second and third causes of action.
The appellants urge that Section 691 does not control, arguing that legislative history indicates the section was originally limited in scope to interest earned on demand deposits and that it has been superceded by 62 O.S.1981, § 348.1. We reject these arguments and hold that the two sections can be read harmoniously. Section 348.1 provides:
The county treasurer in any county, when authorized by the board of county commissioners or the lawful treasurer of any city, town or school district, as the case may be, when authorized by the appropriate governing body, is hereby authorized to invest any monies in the custody of the treasurer in: (a) direct obligations of the United States Government to the payment of which the full faith and credit of the Government of the United States or of the State of Oklahoma is pledged; or (b) certificates of deposits of banks and trust companies when such certificates of deposits are secured by acceptable collateral as in the deposit of other public monies; or (c) in savings accounts or savings certificates of savings and loan associations, banks and trust companies, to the extent that such accounts or certificates are fully insured by the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation, or the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, whenever the appropriate governing board shall determine by resolution that said monies cannot then be used for the purpose for which they are to be expended. Provided, that the income received from said investment may be placed in the general fund of the governmental subdivision to be used for general governmental operations or in the sinking fund or the fund from which the investment was made. (Emphasis added.)
Plainly read, Section 348.1 governs investments of funds which have already been apportioned but which cannot presently be used. It allows a county treasurer or any...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
City of Oklahoma City v. Oklahoma Tax Com'n
... ... March 27, 1990 ... As Corrected May 1, 1990 ... Page 1288 ... ordinance and resolution passed by any county, city, town, or municipal board or local ... 10, § 19 and Independent School Dist. No. 1 v. Board of County Comm'rs, ... Tulsa County Dist. Court, 606 P.2d 545, 547-48 ... ...
-
Board of County Com'rs of County of Laramie v. Laramie County School Dist. Number One
... ... ) filed this action to obtain a declaration that: (1) the School District is entitled to interest earned by the ... Independent School Dist. No. 1 of Tulsa County v. Board of County ... ...
-
State ex rel. Trimble v. City of Moore
... ... Supreme Court of Oklahoma ... Oct. 1, 1991 ... Page 890 ... l from the District Court, Cleveland County; Preston Trimble, Judge ... the claim against two city personnel board members and gave a so-called "consent judgment" ... 's recommendation or for some other independent reason, was a legal act. The City Manager's ... See also Oliver v. City of Tulsa, Okl., 654 P.2d 607, 609 (1982); City of Ponca ... Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Bd of Cty. Com'rs., Okl., 674 P.2d 547, ... ...
-
Rogers v. Quiktrip Corp.
... ... TO THE DISTRICT COURT, POTTAWATOMIE COUNTY, DOUGLAS L. COMBS, TRIAL JUDGE, TO REVIEW A ... Combs, Judge, denied the motion and ruled (1) he had jurisdiction over the cause and (2) the ... McNeill v. City of Tulsa", 1998 OK 2, ¶ 11, 953 P.2d 329, 332. \xC2" ... Ind. Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs., Okl., 1983 OK ... Dunlap v. Board of Com'rs of Carter County et al., 1922 OK, 120, ... ...