553 P.3d 22
Okla.2023Background
- Plaintiffs (Michael W. Cathey and Vonderosa Properties, LLC) own short‑term rental property in Hochatown and challenge a 2% lodging‑tax increase approved at a special election in McCurtain County on Nov. 8, 2022.
- The Board of County Commissioners placed the Proposition on the ballot to fund a new hospital, but did not publish statutorily required four‑week newspaper notice under 19 O.S. § 383.1.
- Vonderosa sued for declaratory relief and sought a temporary injunction to halt collection of the tax; the district court denied the injunction on March 13, 2023 and the case was appealed to the Oklahoma Supreme Court (No. 121,155).
- On March 28, 2023 the Oklahoma Supreme Court granted emergency relief, temporarily enjoining enforcement of the 2% increase until the special‑election validity is fully and finally litigated, expressing no opinion on the merits.
- While rehearing was pending and before mandate issued, the district court (consolidated proceedings) granted summary judgment on June 20, 2023 upholding the election and tax. The Supreme Court held that entry void for lack of jurisdiction, vacated the district court order, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the district court have jurisdiction to enter summary judgment while the appeal was pending and before mandate issued? | The district court was divested of jurisdiction once the appeal and Supreme Court injunction were pending; any intervening order is void. | The district court retained authority to resolve consolidated matters and enter dispositive orders. | Court held district court lacked jurisdiction; June 20, 2023 summary‑judgment order is void, vacated, and case remanded. |
| Was the special‑election notice/publication defective such that the Proposition is invalid? | Board failed to publish the Proposition for four weeks as required, rendering the election invalid. | The election was valid and the tax increase enforceable. | The Supreme Court did not decide the merits here—it resolved only the jurisdictional question and left the substantive challenge for proceedings after mandate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Daniel v. Daniel, 42 P.3d 863 (Okla. 2001) (while an appeal is pending, the trial court is without jurisdiction to enter orders that materially affect rights on appeal; post‑appeal orders entered before mandate are void)
- Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Justice v. Cline, 339 P.3d 887 (Okla. 2014) (authority for temporary injunctive relief by the Supreme Court to preserve rights pending full litigation)