Morton v. Hampton School Dist. No. 1, CA
| Decision Date | 11 December 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. CA,CA |
| Citation | 700 S.W.2d 373,16 Ark.App. 264 |
| Parties | , 29 Ed. Law Rep. 442 Michael H. MORTON, Appellant, v. HAMPTON SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., Appellees. 85-13. |
| Court | Arkansas Court of Appeals |
Roberts, Harrell, Lindsey & Foster by Allen P. Roberts and Phillip J. Foster, Hampton, for appellant.
G. Ross Smith, Little Rock, for appellees.
Appellant was principal of the Hampton High School when, in February, 1983, the school's Board of Directors voted to offer him a new contract for the 1983-84 and 1984-85 school years. Appellant signed the contract on March 8, 1983, after directing the bookkeeper in the superintendent's office to add a provision to it under which he would receive rent-free housing. (His current contract provided for rent-free housing.) The contract was subsequently signed by the president of the school board, but the secretary of the board refused to sign it. After a meeting of the board held on March 14, 1983, the appellant was notified that the superintendent would recommend that his contract not be renewed for the next year; and at a June 23, 1983, meeting, the school board accepted the superintendent's recommendation.
Shortly after appellant's contract was nonrenewed, he filed suit alleging that he had a valid two-year contract which appellees had breached. The trial court held that Ark.Stat.Ann. §§ 80-1304 and 80-509(d) (Repl.1980) required that a teacher's contract must be in writing, signed by both the secretary and the president of the school board, or a majority of the members of the board, and since neither the secretary of the board nor a majority of the members of the board had signed appellant's proposed contract, no contract had been created.
On appeal to this court, it is argued that the trial court erred in holding that appellant did not have a valid and enforceable two-year employment contract. Appellant contends that by signing and returning the contract to the school board president, who also signed it, a valid and enforceable contract was created. Appellant relies on Head v. Caddo Hills School District, 277 Ark. 482, 644 S.W.2d 246 (1982), as inferring that "the contract issued Head and signed by him even though it was not accepted by the School District was in fact a valid contract." We do not believe Head supports that contention.
Head had been issued a contract and had signed it, but before it was accepted by the school board, he was notified that his contract would not be renewed. However, under a section of The Teacher Fair Dismissal Act of 1979, Ark.Stat.Ann. § 80-1264.3 (Repl.1980), his contract was automatically renewed because he had not been notified during the term of his contract, or within ten days after the end of the school year, that his contract would not be renewed.
In the present case, however, the question of an automatic renewal is not involved. Here, the court held, and the appellant agrees, the issue is whether a valid and enforceable contract existed even though the secretary of the board had not signed it. We believe that the controlling case on this issue is Johnson v. Wert, 225 Ark. 91, 279 S.W.2d 274 (1955). In that case the school board had voted to give Johnson, its superintendent, a two-year contract, but before the formal contract was prepared, one of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gahr v. Trammel, 85-1612
...See Chandler v. Perry-Casa Pub. Schools, Dist. No. 2, 286 Ark. 170, 690 S.W.2d 349 (1985); Morton v. Hampton School Dist. No. 1, 16 Ark.App. 264, 700 S.W.2d 373, 375 (1985). We also observe that this court recently held that, in appropriate circumstances, a terminated teacher could attach a......
-
Hart v. Bridges
...code section also makes it clear that the principal is under the supervision of the school board. In Morton v. Hampton School Dist. No. 1, 16 Ark.App. 264, 266, 700 S.W.2d 373, 375 (1985), we affirmed the trial court's finding that, in order to be enforceable, a teacher's contract must be i......
-
Prescott Sch. Dist. v. Steed
...a teacher is not enough to constitute a contract. See Johnson v. Wert, 225Ark. 91, 279 S.W.2d 274 (1955); Morton v. Hampton Sch. Dist., 16 Ark. App. 264, 700 S.W.2d 373 (1985). Moreover, the District claims that Steed was not a "teacher" as defined by Arkansas law, because she did not posse......
-
Bradley v. West Sioux Community School Bd. of Educ.
...to the further requirement that a valid written contract in the form prescribed ... be executed."); Morton v. Hampton Sch. Dist. No. 1, 16 Ark.App. 264, 700 S.W.2d 373, 375 (1985) (quoting Johnson ); Konovalchik v. School Comm. of Salem, 352 Mass. 542, 226 N.E.2d 222, 223 (1967); Minor v. S......