Knowles v. State Bd. of Ed., 48033

• Decision Date: 06 March 1976
• Docket Number: No. 48033,48033
• Citation: 547 P.2d 699,219 Kan. 271
• Parties: Herbert KNOWLES et al., Appellants, v. STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION et al., Appellees.
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Page 699

547 P.2d 699

219 Kan. 271

Herbert KNOWLES et al., Appellants, v. STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION et al., Appellees.

No. 48033.

Supreme Court of Kansas.

March 6, 1976.

Syllabus by the Court

1. The fact that an issue has become moot does no necessarily mean that an appellate court is without jurisdiction to consider the issue on appeal.

2. The rule as to moot questions is one of court policy, founded upon the proposition that, except when under some statutory duty to do so, courts do not sit for the purpose of giving opinions upon abstract propositions not involving actual controversy presented for determination.

3. A party may amend his pleading by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party and leave should be freely given when justice so requires. (K.S.A.1975 Supp. 60-215.)

4. In an action for a declaratory judgment that the Kansas School District Equalization Act of 1973 violates the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the State of Kansas as well as the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which action was tried in the district court but later dismissed as moot after the Legislature passed L.1975, Ch. 378 repealing and amending various sections of the former Act, the record on appeal from the order of dismissal is examined and it is held: (1) A decision on the constitutionality of the 1973 Act would be unavailing (2) The constitutional issues bearing upon plaintiffs' rights remain unresolved; (3) The amendments passed in 1975 did not change the design of the School District Equalization Act; (4) The district court should have permitted the parties to amend the pleadings and introduce further evidence relevant to the constitutional issues as they pertain to the Act as amended; and (5) The order of dismissal is vacated and the case is remanded for reconsideration in light of any intervening changes in the Kansas School District Equalization Act.

T. Richard Liebert, of Liebert & Liebert, Coffeyville, argued the cause, and Frank W. Liebert, Coffeyville, was with him on the brief for appellants.

Donald R. Hoffman, Asst. Atty. Gen., argued the cause, and Curt T. Schneider, Atty. Gen., and Clarence J. Malone, Asst. Atty. Gen., were with him on the brief for appellees.

Erle W. Francis, Topeka, argued the cause and was on the brief for the State Board of Education, its members and the Commissioner of Education, appellees.

FROMME, Justice:

This is an action for declaratory judgment that the Kansas School District Equalization Act of 1973 (K.S.A.1974 Supp. 72-7030 et seq.) violates the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the State of Kansas as well as the equal protection clause contained in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

The Act provides for a complicated formula by which the State Board of Education is authorized to distribute money from the state school district equalization fund to the various local school districts in the state to supplement the funds which local school districts may raise by ad valorem tax levies upon the property within their respective districts.

The action was filed on behalf of Herbert Knowles, Bill Pudden and Jean M. Barber as residents and taxpayers. Jodi Coulter, Russell Pudden and Gayla Gasper, by their respective fathers and next friends, joined in the action as plaintiffs. They are students enrolled in certain of the local school districts affected by the Act. In addition, 41 unified school districts joined as plaintiffs to lend whatever support they could. The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment and an order to enjoin the defendants from making further distributions under the Act.

The Attorney General, Board of Education, Director of Accounts and Reports, Treasurer, and the Commissioner of Education of the State of Kansas were joined as defendants. The attorney general consented to venue on behalf of all defendants and waived any right to trial on the issue of venue.

The issues were joined on pleadings as limited in a pre-trial order. The case was tried to the court. The record on appeal sets forth 48 stipulated exhibits together with 31 separate stipulations of fact. The case was tried in January, 1975. The parties submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The court adopted the 50 findings of fact and seven conclusions of law proposed by the plaintiffs and declared the 1973 School District Equalization Act unconstitutional. As might be expected the judgment created statewide concern among various school boards who were relying on these state funds to meet their budget requirements.

In general it may be said the 1973 Act was struck down because the court found the distribution of state funds under the formula provided in the Act resulted in unequal benefits to certain school districts and an unequal burden of ad valorem school taxes on taxpayers in various districts with no rational classification or basis. It was further held that this provision for state finance of schools was not sufficient to enable the plaintiffs to provide a fundamental education for the students within these respective districts on a rationally equal basis with students of other school districts within the state as required in the state constitution.

The constitutional basis for plaintiffs' attack appears in the Constitution of the State of Kansas as follows:

'The legislature shall provide for intellectual, educational, vocational and scientific improvement by establishing and maintaining public schools, educational institutions and related activities which may be organized and changed in such manner as may be provided by law.' (Article 6, § 1.)

'Local public schools under the general supervision of the state board of education shall be maintained, developed and operated by locally elected boards. When authorized by law, such boards may make and carry out agreements for cooperative operation and administration of educational programs under the general supervision of the state board of education, but such agreements shall be subject to limitation, change or termination by the legislature.' (Article 6, § 5.)

'The legislature shall make suitable provision for finance of the educational interests of the state. . . .' (Article 6; § 6(b).)

'The legislature shall provide for a uniform and equal rate of assessment and taxation, . . .' (Article 11, § 1.)

In addition the plaintiffs alleged and the court found that the 1973 School District Equalization Act denies equal protection under the law to the individual plaintiffs as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and Section 1 of the Kansas Bill of Rights.

However, the district judge took judicial notice that the Kansas Legislature was in session when his judgment was entered in February, 1975, and he set July 1, 1975, as the effective date for the injunction in order to give the Legislature time to correct the inequalities.

Thereafter the defendants filed a motion to open the judgment on the ground that an act was before the legislature which would materially change the operation and effect of the 1973 Act. They asked that the judgment be opened to permit the introduction of further evidence which might be relevant should the Act be materially changed.

After an extensive hearing on the defendants' motion the court held as follows:

'1. That the judgment of this Court heretofore entered February 25, 1975, be and the same is reopened for the purposes heretofore stated in the findings of this order; and

'2. That this Court does retain jurisdiction of the parties and subject matter until a final judgment is hereafter entered pursuant to the above findings and this order; and

'3. That the defendants shall have a reasonable time after the adjournment of the current 1975 Session of the Kansas Legislature to present to this Court their application for review with evidence and testimony in support thereof; and

'4. That after consideration by this Court of said application for review, this Court shall reconsider his decision in the light of any action taken in the current 1975 Session, and then enter its final judgment therein.'

Thereafter the Kansas Legislature repealed and amended various sections of the 1973 School District Equalization Act effective July 1, 1975. When the 1975 law was approved by the governor the defendants filed a motion in the district court asking that they be permitted to introduce testimony and evidence as to the changes wrought by the 1975 amendments. A copy of the new bill (House Substitute for Senate Bill No. 480) was attached to the motion. Arguments were had on the motion on June 10, 1975. Although the judge took judicial notice of the 1975 amendments, he refused to hear further testimony and evidence and dismissed the case as moot. The journal entry of dismissal in pertinent part reads:

'Thereupon, the Court announced its decision that by reason of the action taken by the 1975 Kansas Legislature, the law as it existed on February 25, 1975, no longer existed; that any determination concerning the constitutionality of the old law is moot; that the constitutionality of the 1975 amendments is an entirely new matter and must be litigated in a new action; that the injunction heretofore entered in the above case should be dissolved and that the abofe entitled case be dismissed. Costs to defendants.'

The plaintiffs appeal from this order which dissolved the injunction and dismissed the case as moot.

As might be expected the defendants did not see fit to file a cross-appeal even though their motion to open the judgment had previously been granted in order to permit them to introduce evidence and testimony in support of an application for review after the adjournment of the 1975 session of the legislature. The order dismissing the action terminated the case entirely in their favor.

The thrust of plaintiffs' appeal is two-fold. They argue that no material changes were made in the provisions of the...