Southern Oklahoma Development Trust, Application of, 44165
| Citation | 1970 OK 118,470 P.2d 572 |
| Decision Date | 12 June 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 44165,44165 |
| Parties | Application of SOUTHERN OKLAHOMA DEVELOPMENT TRUST for Approval of $500,000 in Southern Oklahoma Development Trust First Mortgage Revenue Bonds, Series A, and Bond Indenture for Issuance Thereof. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Oklahoma |
Syllabus by the Court
A valid public trust, with the State as beneficiary, may be created for the furtherance, or the providing of funds for the furtherance, of any authorized or proper function of the beneficiary. 60 O.S.1961, § 176.
Application in the nature of an original proceeding for approval of proceedings and bonds proposed to be issued by Southern Oklahoma Development Trust for acquisition of site and construction of a parking facility.
Proceedings and bond indenture and bonds approved as valid in accordance with their terms.
Charles R. Nesbitt, and Robert N. Naifeh, Oklahoma City, for petitioner Oklahoma Southern Development Company.
In this original proceeding the petitioner Southern Oklahoma Development Trust, petitions this court to assume original jurisdiction and determine whether the Trust has the legal power to construct, own and operate a parking facility in the City of Ada, Oklahoma; determine whether the proceedings of the Trust and its trustees had in connection with the authorization and issuance of certain First Mortgage Revenue Bonds are regular and in compliance with the law and the provisions of 60 O.S.1961, §§ 176--180; and determine the validity of the provisions of the Bond Indenture adopted by the trustees for the issuance and payment of the bonds, under the Constitution and Laws of Oklahoma.
Notice of the filing of the above application and of the presentation thereof to this court has been duly given. No protest or contest has been filed.
In view of the public importance of the matters involved and the need for an early decision we accept original jurisdiction of the proceeding.
The proceeding presents a situation that in some respects is different from similar matters previously before this court involving the validity of acts of public trusts and their bonds.
In 1965 the Legislature enacted the Interlocal Cooperation Act, 74 O.S.Supp.1965, §§ 1001--1008. The Act provides in part (§ 1001 that its purpose is to permit local governmental units to make the most efficient use of their powers by enabling them to cooperate with other localities on a basis of mutual advantage and thereby to provide services and facilities in a manner and pursuant to forms of governmental organization that will accord best with geographic, economic, population and other factors influencing the needs and development of local communities. It empowers public agencies to enter into agreements (§ 1004), providing for joint and cooperative action to exercise and enjoy the powers, privileges or authority exercised or capable of exercise by a public agency. It also (§ 1004) specifies the essential elements of the agreement and authorizes the establishment of a separate legal entity to conduct the joint and cooperative undertaking.
'Public agency' as defined in the Act (§ 1003), include 'any political subdivision of this state; any agency of the state government or of the United States.'
Pursuant to the Interlocal Cooperation Act the Counties of Atoka, Bryan, Carter, Coal, Garvin, Johnston, Love, Marshall, Murray and Pontotoc, acting through their Boards of County Commissioners, and various cities in said counties, including the City of Ada in Pontotoc County, by written agreement effective January 1, 1967, formed the Southern Development Association, to function under the Act. It is provided therein that the Association may form legal entities such as corporations or trusts to promote and develop specific projects. In accordance with the requirements of the Act (§ 1004) the agreement was submitted to and was approved by the Oklahoma Attorney General and was filed (§ 1005) with the Oklahoma Secretary of State.
Thereafter, on October 12, 1967, under the provisions of 60 O.S.1961, §§ 176--180, known as the Public Trust Law, the Association and one Leon Biddy, as Trustor, formed the Southern Oklahoma Development Trust, petitioner herein, with seven trustees, and the State of Oklahoma as beneficiary. The Governor of the State of Oklahoma, Dewey F. Bartlett, under authority of 60 O.S.1961, § 177, duly accepted the beneficial interest in the trust on behalf of the State of Oklahoma. On March 27, 1970, a Supplement to the above trust was duly executed and accepted in the same fashion and with the same formality as the original trust instrument.
In the original trust instrument of October 12, 1967, the stated purposes provided in part that they were, 'To promote the development of industry and culture and industrial, transportation, communication, manufacturing, cultural, tourism, recreational, health and educational activities and facilities within and without the territorial limits of The Southern Oklahoma Development Association and to thereby provide * * * additional employment and activities * * *, of benefit to the cities and counties embraced therein. Additional purposes provide in detail for the purchase, acquisition, lease and construction of properties and facilities...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
LODGE NO. 188 v. TULSA CTY. BD. OF COM'RS
...if a county is a beneficiary. . . . 29. Morris v. City of Oklahoma City, 1956 OK 202, ¶ 0, 299 P.2d 131, 136. 30. In re Southern Okla. Dev. Trust, 1970 OK 118, ¶ 17, 470 P.2d 572, 574. 31. Tulsa County Deputy Sheriff's Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge Number 188, 1998 OK 44, ¶¶ 4, 17, 959 P......
-
State ex rel. Brown v. City of Warr Acres
...Burkhardt v. City of Enid, see note 1, supra; Way v. Grand Lake Association, Inc., see note 5, supra; In re Southern Oklahoma Development Trust, 1970 OK 118, 470 P.2d 572, 574-575; Sublett v. City of Tulsa, supra, note 4 at 194-195; Lawrence v. Schellstede, supra, note 4 at 1081.10 Burkhard......
-
Burkhardt v. City of Enid
...to repel invasion, or to suppress insurrection. 3 See Way v. Grand Lake Ass'n, Inc., 635 P.2d 1010 (Okla.1981); In re Southern Okla. Dev. Trust, 470 P.2d 572 (Okla.1970); Sublett v. City of Tulsa, 405 P.2d 185 (Okla.1965); Robinson v. Hal Johnson & Co., 206 Okla. 397, 243 P.2d 657 (1952). T......
-
City of Muskogee v. Phillips
...property for the construction of a parking facility described therein as a public utility pursuant to In re Application of Southern Oklahoma Development Trust, 470 P.2d 572. The Resolution provided “said parking facility is needed for the health and safety of the Citizen's [sic] of Muskogee......