Tulsa Industrial Authority v. City of Tulsa
2011 OK 57
| Okla. | 2011Background
- THL sought to develop Tulsa Hills Shopping Center within a Tulsa Tax Increment District created under the Local Development Act.
- The Tulsa Industrial Authority issued $18.5 million in bonds, with $18.5 million earmarked for THL infrastructure and related costs.
- Taxpayers claimed that bond proceeds and tax revenues were misused to subsidize private development, violating the Public Trust Act and Article X §19 of the Oklahoma Constitution.
- Taxpayers demanded that TIA and the City sue to recover allegedly unlawful transfers; TIA filed a declaratory judgment action seeking legal validation of the project.
- Bundren, a taxpayer, sought to intervene in the declaratory judgment action; the district court denied intervention, and summary judgment favorable to the defendants followed.
- On appeal, the issues included whether Bundren could intervene (a qui tam claim) and whether the appeal was moot given the declaratory judgment rendered during the pendency.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May a taxpayer intervene in a public body's declaratory judgment action? | Bundren argues he has qui tam rights to press illegal expenditures. | THL/City/TIA contend intervention is improper unless the controversy is non-justiciable or the taxpayer has a statutory right. | Taxpayer intervention is proper where a justiciable controversy is presented and rights to equitable relief may be pursued. |
| Can a public trust be a qui tam plaintiff or intervene in such proceedings? | Taxpayer contends public trusts may participate; the City/THL argue against it under §373/§378 frameworks. | Public trusts are not designates under §373/§372; the public entity’s conduct governs intervention viability. | Public trusts may not serve as qui tam plaintiffs, but taxpayers may pursue equitable relief independent of the trust. |
| Is the appeal moot because a declaratory judgment was obtained in the district court while Bundren’s intervention appeal was pending? | Mootness does not attach because Bundren’s interest and the equitable relief claim remain viable and not fully adjudicated. | Once summary judgment resolved the legality, mootness would bar relief on appeal. | Mootness is avoided; the intervention claim and equitable relief issues remain non-moot and properly reviewable. |
| Does the intervenor have to show the public body inadequately presented a justiciable controversy to support intervention for equitable relief? | Taxpayer contends the public body failed to present a justiciable controversy, warranting intervention for equity. | Public body presented a justiciable controversy; intervention should be denied on merits if appropriate. | Taxpayer satisfied the criteria for intervention to seek equitable relief; the district court erred in denying it. |
Key Cases Cited
- Threadgill v. Peterson, 219 P. 389 (Okl. 1923) (taxpayer may seek equitable relief to prevent illegal public expenditures)
- Kellogg v. School Dist. No. 10 of Comanche County, 74 P. 110 (Okla. 1903) (taxpayer may obtain injunctive relief to prevent improper public debts)
- Oklahoma Public Employees Association v. Oklahoma Department of Central Services, 55 P.3d 1072 (Okla. 2002) (taxpayers may seek equity to challenge illegal expenditure of public funds)
- House of Realty, Inc. v. City of Midwest City, 109 P.3d 314 (Okla. 2004) (broad statutory prohibition on public trusts engaging in retail activity remains relevant to intervention context)
- City of Broken Arrow, Oklahoma v. Bass Pro Outdoor World, LLC, 250 P.3d 305 (Okla. 2011) (public bodies' declaratory judgments reviewed for justiciability; intervention principles applied)
- State ex rel. Moshe Tal v. City of Oklahoma City, 61 P.3d 234 (Okla. 2002) ( Tal line clarifies intervention standards and justiciability in public expenditure cases)
- City of Oklahoma City v. Oklahoma City Urban Renewal Authority, 988 P.2d 901 (Okla. 1999) (early articulation of justiciability and declaratory relief limits)
- City of Broken Arrow, Oklahoma v. Bass Pro Outdoor World, LLC, et al., 250 P.3d 305 (Okla. 2011) (intervention and public contract challenge framework applied)