280 P.3d 314
Okla.2011Background
- Tulsa City Council approved transferring Air Force Plant Number 3 to Tulsa Industrial Authority (TIA) to secure a non-recourse Bank of Oklahoma (BOK) loan to Great Plains Airlines, enabling a $30,000,000 loan to Great Plains.
- The transfer was to allow the Tulsa Airports Improvement Trust (TAIT) to enter a Support Agreement, giving TAIT power to compel sale of the Property to satisfy the loan if Great Plains defaulted, directed by BOK.
- The transaction was publicly announced December 21, 2000; a Quit Claim Deed from the City to TIA was recorded December 27, 2000; the mortgage to BOK was not filed in Tulsa County land records.
- Great Plains defaulted in 2004; FAA advised TAIT not to use funds for such purchase under the FAA Revenue Use Policy; TAIT refused to perform its obligation.
- BOK sued TAIT and related entities; City of Tulsa joined in 2008; the parties settled in June 2008 with the City paying $7.1 million to BOK to settle the suit.
- Taxpayers filed a Qui Tam demand alleging the settlement was unauthorized; the City sought a declaratory judgment regarding the legality of the settlement and payment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether unjust enrichment claim against a municipality is actionable and requires GTCA as a condition precedent | BOK asserts unjust enrichment is viable against Tulsa. | Tulsa contends unjust enrichment not viable; no GTCA prerequisite applies here. | Unjust enrichment claim not viable; GTCA not satisfied; remand to repay. |
| Whether the settlement payment can be voided due to authority or legality of the settlement | Taxpayers argue the City lacked authority to settle and pay. | City maintains proper defense, declaratory action, and authorization exist. | Settlement deemed untimely/unviable; nonetheless City properly responded; penalties not awarded. |
| Whether taxpayers are entitled to Qui Tam penalties | Taxpayers seek penalties under 62 O.S. Supp.2008, § 372 and § 878. | City acted properly; no penalty due due to settlement/response. | Taxpayers not entitled to Qui Tam penalties; penalties denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Fent v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Water Resources Board, 2003 OK 29 (Okla. Supreme Court 2003) (de novo review for summary judgment in quo and evidentiary sufficiency)
- Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48 (Okla. Supreme Court 1996) (de novo standard; review of material facts for summary judgment)
- Buck's Sporting Goods, Inc. of Tulsa v. First Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. of Tulsa, 1994 OK 14 (Okla. Supreme Court 1994) (summary judgment standard; factual disputes review)
- Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation, Inc. v. Vick, 1992 OK 140 (Okla. Supreme Court 1992) (discovery rule tolling limitations period)
- Stephens v. General Motors Corp., 1995 OK 114 (Okla. Supreme Court 1995) (accrual and limitation concepts for actions under 12 O.S. Supp.1998 § 95)
- M.B.A. Constr., Inc. v. Roy J. Hannaford Co., Inc., 818 P.2d 469 (Okla. Supreme Court 1991) (negligence accrues when injury certain, not speculative)
- Tulsa Industrial Authority v. City of Tulsa, 2011 OK 57 (Okla. Supreme Court 2011) (public body's right to intervene in Qui Tam framework; diligence in enforcement)