King v. City of Harrisburg
2014 Ark. 183
Ark.2014Background
- Patricia King filed a petition for quo warranto and a claim for wages on April 6, 2012, asserting she was the duly acting and elected city clerk for Harrisburg and seeking pay for the joint office of clerk/treasurer.
- King also sought a writ of quo warranto against the city treasurer, claiming the treasurer was occupying the office without authority and that she should be installed as clerk/treasurer.
- The City moved for summary judgment, contending King was not the successor to a combined clerk/treasurer office and thus not entitled to additional wages.
- The circuit court denied summary judgment and, after a bench trial, concluded Ordinance 86-001 did not join or separate the clerk and treasurer offices but merely set salaries for budgetary purposes.
- The circuit court dismissed King’s complaint with prejudice; King appealed arguing Ordinance 86-001 both recognized and funded the combined office.
- On appeal, the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed, holding Ordinance 86-001 did not create or establish a combined clerk/treasurer office.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Ordinance 86-001 create a combined clerk/treasurer office? | King argued the ordinance recognized and created the combined office. | City argued the ordinance was budgetary, not creation of a combined office. | No; ordinance did not join or create a combined office. |
| Whether the circuit court clearly erred in interpreting Ordinance 86-001 | King contends the court misread the ordinance as only salary-setting. | City asserts the court correctly found it only set salaries for budgetary purposes. | No clear error; finding affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Daugherty v. Jacksonville Police Dep’t, 2012 Ark. 264 (Ark. 2012) (standard of review on appeal from bench trial)
- Vanderpool v. Pace, 97 S.W.3d 404 (2003) (construction of statutes and ordinances applies statutory rules)
- Williams v. City of Fayetteville, 76 S.W.3d 235 (2002) (avoid reading words into an ordinance; one-subject rule)
- Craft v. City of Fort Smith, 984 S.W.2d 22 (1998) (one-subject requirement for ordinances)