La Paz County v. Yuma County

• Decision Date: 27 March 1987
• Docket Number: No. 16466,16466
• Citation: 153 Ariz. 162,735 P.2d 772
• Parties: LA PAZ COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Arizona, Plaintiff, v. YUMA COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Arizona, Defendant.
• Court: Arizona Supreme Court

Page 772

735 P.2d 772

153 Ariz. 162

LA PAZ COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Arizona, Plaintiff, v.YUMA COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Arizona, Defendant.

No. 16466.

Supreme Court of Arizona.

March 27, 1987.

Don Bennett Moon, La Paz Co. Atty. and Steven P. Suskin, Chief Deputy La Paz Co. Atty., Parker, and Sacks, Tierney & Kasen by Michael D. Hawkins, Scot C. Stirling, Phoenix, for plaintiff.

David S. Ellsworth, Yuma Co. Atty., and O'Connor, Cavanagh, Anderson, Westover, Killingsworth & Beshears by Jeffrey B. Smith, Phoenix, for defendant.

HOLOHAN, Justice.

This case involves a dispute over the division of assets between two counties necessitated by the formation of a new county (La Paz) from the existing territory of an existing county (Yuma).We have original and exclusive jurisdiction over disputes between counties.Ariz. Const. art. VI § 5(2).

FACTS

On March 29, 1982, supporters of an effort to create a new county out of the northern portion of Yuma County filed petitions with sufficient valid signatures to mandate a special election under A.R.S. §§ 11-131 and -132.¹ The voters of Yuma County approved the measure on May 25, 1982 to create what is now La Paz County.In November 1982 voters in the new county elected county officials, and selected a county seat and a name for the new county.La Paz County was duly organized as of January 1, 1983.La Paz filed its original complaint on February 17, 1983.

Pursuant to Rule 53(a) of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S., this court appointed a special master to hear this case.² The special master filed his report with the court on January 22, 1986.The parties filed their objections with the court and appeared at a hearing on April 10, 1986.

SCOPE OF REVIEW

Rule 53(h), Ariz.R.Civ.P., 16 A.R.S., provides for judicial use of special masters' reports and states that "[t]he court shall accept the master's findings of fact unless clearly erroneous."The rule provides that the "court after hearing may adopt the report or may modify it or may reject it in whole or in part or may receive further evidence or may recommit it with instructions."Id.The Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure were adopted from the federal rules;Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53(e)(2) is nearly identical to Arizona's Rule 53(h).We give great weight to interpretations given to similar federal rules.Jenney v. Arizona Express, Inc., 89 Ariz. 343, 349, 362 P.2d 664, 668(1961).

The special master had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses, and to weigh the witnesses' credibility.SeeNLRB v. Sequoia District Council of Carpenters, 568 F.2d 628, 632(9th Cir.1977);Carter Oil Co. v. McQuigg, 112 F.2d 275, 279(7th Cir.1940).We believe the master's findings of fact are supported by the evidence and are not clearly erroneous.

We note that a master's conclusions of law, on the other hand, "are entitled to no special deference ... and will be overturned whenever they are believed to be erroneous."Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers Int'l Union v. NLRB, 547 F.2d 575, 580(D.C.Cir.1976), cert. denied, Angle v. NLRB, 431 U.S. 966, 97 S.Ct. 2923, 53 L.Ed.2d 1062(1977)(footnote omitted).

ISSUES

The underlying issue here concerns the proportionate entitlements to assets for La Paz and Yuma Counties pursuant to A.R.S. § 11-148(1977).The statute read in full:

§ 11-148.Basis for division of county property

The right to property and revenue of the new county and the counties from which its territory is taken, or of any counties whose boundaries are changed, shall be ascertained upon the basis of the valuation of the property therein at the time of the last assessment of county taxes previous to the receipt of the initiative petition provided for in § 11-132.Upon such basis, the new county shall be entitled its proportionate interest in all the county property and money on hand at the time of its organization, and in all revenues to be derived from taxes assessed previous to such organization, and shall be chargeable with and liable for its due proportion of all debts contracted prior to its organization, including current expenses up to the time of the organization remaining unpaid.

The special master's report examined four issues: 1) whether Yuma County had a duty to implement an accounting and division of county assets prior to January 1, 1983, thereby warranting imposition of damages, 2) whether the proper method for valuing the assets involved in the county division is "assessed valuation" or "full cash value," 3) whether Article IX, section 20 of the Arizona Constitution applies to the property division between the two counties, and 4) whether La Paz County is entitled to interest on any or all of the monies due from Yuma County.

I.IS LA PAZ ENTITLED TO DAMAGES?

In its amended complaint, La Paz seeks actual and punitive damages, alleging that Yuma failed to implement a working accounting and division of county assets prior to the formation of La Paz on January 1, 1983.La Paz bases this duty to account prior to new county formation on the language in A.R.S. § 11-148 describing its entitlement to a proportionate share of money and property "at the time of its organization."The new county additionally alleges dilatory and obstructive tactics by Yuma County officials throughout the creation process.Yuma County moved to dismiss this claim.On January 4, 1985, the special master decided, pursuant to Rule 12(b) of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S., to treat Yuma's motion as a motion for partial summary judgment.

We agree with the special master's conclusion that Yuma County had no legal duty to implement a division of assets prior to La Paz County's formation, and therefore La Paz is not entitled to damages.A.R.S. § 11-148 simply establishes the basis upon which the division of county property is to be determined.Each county's right to property and revenue is based on the valuation of county property "at the time of the last assessment of county taxes previous to the receipt of the initiative petition provided for in § 11-132."A.R.S. § 11-148.This valuation is based on an already-completed process requiring no further action on Yuma County's part.

While A.R.S. § 11-148 does entitle La Paz to its proportionate share of county property and money on hand as of the date of its organization, it does not establish any duty on Yuma's part to make an accounting or division prior to that time.Nor does any other statute in article 3, which relates to creation of new counties, impose an affirmative duty on the existing county to prepare such an accounting or division.It is well settled that a board of supervisors possesses only those powers expressly conferred by statute or necessarily implied therefrom.Peters v. Frye, 71 Ariz. 30, 34, 223 P.2d 176, 178(1950).We will not judicially impose duties on county officials that were not contemplated by the Legislature.

Nor does the election commission have any duty to divide county assets or prepare an accounting.Once the voters approve the county split proposition, an election commission is established for the purpose of organizing the new county.A.R.S. § 11-141(1977).The election commission is granted powers and duties similar to those of a board of supervisors with respect to the new county, until the officers of the new county are elected.A.R.S. § 11-142(1977).The key portion of this statute, however, reads: "[t]he proposed new county shall not be deemed to exist for any purpose other than for completion of its organization until the officers thereof are elected and qualified."Id.In addition, A.R.S. § 11-143(1977) mandates that the commissioners divide the proposed new county into precincts and voting districts and prepare for the election of officers at the next general election.We believe this statute limits the commissioners' powers and duties to those related to preparing the county for the general election at which a board of supervisors for the new county will be selected.SeeAriz.Atty.Gen.Op.No. I82-023.Since the new county shall not be deemed to exist except for organizational purposes until the officers are elected, the election commissioners have no duty beyond preparing for the next election.

A.R.S. § 11-149(1977), however, does give the board of supervisors of the new county the authority to "settle and adjust all questions arising from the organization of the new county ..., and involving respective rights and obligations."We believe, therefore, that the Legislature intended that only the board of supervisors of the newly established county would have the power to settle the accounts involved in the division of assets contemplated by A.R.S. § 11-148.

We conclude that Yuma has conformed to the requirements of A.R.S. §§ 11-131 through -154 insofar as it did appoint an election commission to organize the new county and expeditiously conducted the election which resulted in the formation of La Paz County.We note the special master's finding that the election commissioners did meet with the Yuma County Board of Supervisors to "speed up the division of assets."Nevertheless, we agree that the election commissioners did not have authority under our statutes to bind the new county to an estimate of its "proportionate interest" in county assets.Yuma County was not responsible for conducting an accounting and division of assets before January 1, 1983.We therefore follow the recommendation of the special master and grant Yuma's motion to dismiss the claim of La Paz for damages.

II.METHOD OF VALUATION

Yuma argues that "valuation" as used in A.R.S. § 11-148 means "full cash value."Yuma contends that since "valuation" is not defined in Title 11, the definition of "valuation" as "full cash value"³ in A.R.S. § 42-201(13) should be used.La Paz contends that the statute refers to "assessed valuation."⁴Yuma's proportionate entitlement to...