Richmond Cty. Bd. of Educ. v. CowellÂ
254 N.C. App. 422
N.C. Ct. App.2017Background
- Richmond County Board of Education sued State officials challenging a statute that required $50 surcharges for certain offenses be remitted to the Statewide Misdemeanant Confinement Fund; the board argued the fees constitutionally belong to counties for public schools (N.C. Const. art. IX, § 7).
- The trial court entered summary judgment for the school board; this Court affirmed and directed the State to "pay back" the improperly remitted funds to county clerks to be delivered to county schools.
- The funds had already been spent on county jail programs; no injunction had been obtained to prevent spending while litigation proceeded, and the General Assembly did not appropriate new funds to satisfy the judgment.
- The trial court later issued a writ of mandamus ordering the State Treasurer, Controller, and Attorney General to pay the judgment from the State treasury; defendants appealed.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the judiciary cannot compel the executive or legislature to appropriate or disburse new funds from the State treasury because of Separation of Powers; the school board’s remedy for satisfaction of the money judgment lies to the legislative and executive branches (or the ballot box).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court may order State officials to draw funds from the State treasury to satisfy a judgment against the State | The writ of mandamus can compel officials to pay the judgment from available State funds (including discretionary emergency/contingency funds) | Separation of Powers forbids courts from ordering appropriations or directing executive discretion to expend unappropriated funds | Court held judiciary cannot compel payment of new appropriated funds from the treasury; mandamus cannot be used to invade legislative/executive appropriation discretion |
| Whether courts could order return of funds collected in violation of the Constitution | School board argued the improperly diverted fees should be "paid back" to county clerks as this Court previously ordered | Defendants noted money already expended and unavailable for return | Court said return could be ordered only if the funds still existed; here the funds were spent, so return was impossible |
| Whether mandamus can force use of Contingency/Emergency Fund to satisfy judgment | Mandamus may require officials to take whatever steps necessary to find discretionary sources like contingency fund | Use of contingency fund is discretionary and requires executive/ Council of State decision; mandamus cannot control discretionary acts | Court held mandamus cannot compel executive officials to make discretionary appropriations from contingency funds |
| Proper constitutional remedy for a money judgment against the State | Judiciary can enforce the right up to entry of judgment and order return of existing funds | If funds are not available, satisfaction depends on Legislature/Executive; courts may not appropriate funds | Court reaffirmed that after judgment the remedy is for the General Assembly/executive to discharge the judgment; courts lack power to appropriate or compel appropriation |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. State, 289 N.C. 303 (1976) (judiciary may enter money judgments against the State but cannot compel appropriation or execution; satisfaction depends on Legislature/Executive)
- In re Alamance Cty. Court Facilities, 329 N.C. 84 (1991) (judiciary cannot take public monies without statutory authorization; mandamus cannot control discretionary executive acts)
- Person v. Board of State Tax Comm’rs, 184 N.C. 499 (1922) (Separation of Powers is fundamental; courts cannot exercise powers reserved to other branches)