*1 Williams, BAYLIS, Ladd, M.C. L.J. H.R. Townes; Fortney, B.D. B.J.
R.H. Gann,
Reeves, Richardson, R.R. B.J. Lamb, Warfield, Leighty, F.H.
G.A. J.K. Parker, McKim, Stoops,
H.R. C.A. W.A. Foote, Faulkenberry,
J.L. P.C. C.L. Holeman, Osborn,
Taylor, W.W. W.I. Hawkins, Maddox, Reyn
E.S. J.D. R.G. Mendenhall,
olds, Murphree, J.L. M.K. McKenzie, Morris, Bow
E.W. W.L. E.A.
lin; and, Wall, Atkins, R.D. D.L. O.H. Fox, Horn,
Bilyeu, King, C.C. W.H. K.C. Secrist, Thompson,
D.E. G.L. J.D. Ca
noll, Casteel, Vincent, Le K.D. F.E. T.
wallen, Duncan, Sr., Hill, R.E. D.G. C.T.
Lester, Glanz, Thompson, W.R. S.D. McDonald, Skipworth,
W.M. A.F. D.R.
Bartlett, Appellees, TULSA, municipal
The CITY OF
corporation, Appellant.
No. 64832.
Supreme Court Oklahoma.
June
Rehearing Denied Oct. Stark, Tulsa, Gasaway,
Don E. A. Cliff appellees. for Harris, Tulsa, Imogene City Atty., Asst. appellant. SUMMERS, Justice. controlling question
The lone is whether plaintiff/appellee police officers and fire- fighters judgment against seek who (city) money of Tulsa due under a requiring clause give employees percent pay reclassified raise of 62 362 and 363 in order for the they to be valid. We hold that plaintiffs presented must. Because no evi- dence provisions, at trial to these of the trial court is jurisdiction. want of *2 estoppel; applied the doctrine of collateral supervisory or plaintiffs hold All of (6) plaintiffs have been Tulsa that since the positions managerial increases, they routinely granted pay was hired departments. fire Each police or mаny percent five amount agreement. In 1978 not entitled by oral con- in Because we find employment of their became as stated the manual. conditions pro- policy comply with 62 plaintiffs’ trolled written that dispute focuses mat- manual. This 362 and 363 resolves the cedures O.S.1981 §§ provision ter, remaining argu- of that manual which upon a need not reach the we that states ments. position to a “upon reclassification sixty-twо of title 362 and 363 Sections Professional/Managerial class in the Ser- judgments in contract mu- control
vice, rate shall the minimum the new be jurisdictional nicipalities, and function as range rate of the or a rate above 5% predicates govern expenditures “to rate, higher.” City whichever is former within the limits set [Article Manual, Tulsa, Policy and Procedures Constitution.” of] [Oklahoma] 1978 210.4. City v. Oklahoma Green Construction The manual defines rеclassification as “a (1938). Co., These 184 Okl. grade change pay and/or classification as fol- sections Id. at 210.1. ...” lows: allege they plaintiffs
All the
that
were
62 O.S.1981 §
meaning of the man-
reclassified within the
final
suit
“Before
ual,
percent
entitled to the five
and were
on contract shall be rendered
based
(the
salary study
personnel
increase after a
municipality by any court of
Hay study)
by consulting
was conducted
Oklahoma,
аny county in the State of
city
firm as directed
in 1978. As a
any in-
except
proceedings
to refund
Hay study,
city divided the
result of the
municipality,
debtedness of said
plain-
employee group,
“PM”
to which all
the exist-
shall made to the
belong,
eight
into
rather than the ex-
tiffs
ence,
and amount of the out-
character
segments.
plaintiffs
isting seven
who
standing legal
of said mu-
indebtedness
designated PM-01 em-
previously
had
nicipality, ...”
ployees
plаintiffs
based
they had been
due
from June
court’s
On
In 1982 the
appeal,
process. At trial the court found that
rule to eliminate the
seeking
percent raise for the five
judgment is void for lack of
on reclassification.
were
brought
were
redesignated PM-02.
deprived
city argued
1979 until
declaratory judgment
changed
entitled to
this action in district
property without
(1)
April
its reclassifica-
In 1984 the
pay
that the trial
year period
increаse
subject
that
fully
until the
against any municipality
dered in violation
(Emphasis
62 O.S.1981 363.
this act shall be void and of
appeal.
jurisdictional
“No
[******]
plaintiffs object to the
provisions
However,
added)
with.
defect
of [§
shall be
Any judgment ren-
for the first
362], have been
by any court
no
rendered
effect.”
raising
time
objection
settled that an
plaintiffs’ failure
“the rule is well
jurisdiction
matter
due to
363;
jurisdiction
er
that the trial court had
with O.S.1981§§
may
raised at
lay
subject matter
(2)
remedy
plaintiffs’ exclusive
that
proceedings.
It
is not
state of the
Commis-
an
Civil Service
question
manual; (3)
raise the
by a failure to
in the
that
waived
sion
trial,
raised for the
administra-
plaintiffs had failed to exhaust
appellate court. Other-
remedies; (4)
first time in the
plaintiffs’ claims are
that
tive
give juris-
wise,
parties could
consent of
of limita-
the three
statute
barred
Shaw-
National Bank
diction.”
tions; (5)
improperly
State
elеction,
thereof, voting
at
212 P.
voters
88 Okl.
nee v.
&Wood
purpose
for that
...” Okla.Const.
(1923)
be held
Art.
Sec. 26.
Again,
stated Oklahoma
the Court
however,
recognize,
Co., supra
We
Constr.
v. Green
func-
“certain
fundamental
on a contract is
“Where an action based
actively exercised
always
city,
trial court is
tions
brought
preserve the existence of the
render
in order to
jurisdiction to
*3
people the
and secure tо the
city unless
... 62 O.S.
state
the,
with;
guaranteed to
... and should
and com-
361-364 are
§§
impotent as to be unable
state become so
plaint
comply
of the failure to
therewith
functions,
discharge these
there would
ap-
for the first time on
may be raised
purposes
of
for which
by
at P. 623.
result a failure
peal.” Syllabus
the Court
government was
established
an accurate statement of the
This remains
Smartt, supra at 1102.
today.
Bellman
law
Lа
v. Gleason &
Sanders,
Inc.,
(Okla.1966).
which
limita-
inquire
This
into and were not included within the
each case.
Court
26”.
at 1104.
jurisdiction as
as to the
tions of Art.
Sec.
Id.
its оwn
well
Thus,
exception
recognized an
jurisdiction of the court from which the
we
taken,
regardless
limitation
for “those liabili-
is
whether it
debt
upon municipali-
litigants.”
imposed
Ar
ties
is raised
Cate v.
which
Co., Inc.,
1352, 1356
superior power
sovereignty
ty by
695 P.2d
n.
of the
chon Oil
(Okla.1985) (citation omitted).
expressed
the Constitution
valid
Legislature.”
acts of the
Id. at 1104.
raised,
Having
properly
we find
that the
act in
jurisdictional question
that the
resolves the We cannot conclude
obligating
per-
appears
voluntarily
matter.
in the record
itself
No evidence
pay
managerial
requirements
that satisfies the
of 62 O.S.
cent
raise for reclassified
Consequently
personnel
non-discretionary
constitutes a
362 and 363.
per-
expense
is
unless the
incurred
in the
trial court’s order
indebt-
mandatory duty
from a claim
on a
formance of a
such that its
edness arises
based
function,
governmental
render the life of the
non-payment “would
constitutional
precari-
subject
security
not
to the
state and the
of the citizen
which claims are
debt
ous_”
Consequently,
provisions of Article
Id. at
limitation
expenses
fall
26 of the Oklahoma Constitution. Smartt
these
within
jurisdictional mandates of 62
County Commissioners
O.S.1981
v. Board of
require
362 and 363
Craig County, 67 Okl.
No shall be ren- enforceable compliance with that section’s dered a contract claim’s resolu- after 2) requirements and to leave the merits against ... and a unless, undisturbed, rendered in violation this act’s stric- course, it be found flawed some other tures shall be nonexecutable ground.12 municipal defendant-debtor. “void,” The word as used in should resolving Whenever a court decision given generally accept- not its usual ex contractu claim fails Rather, legal meaning. ripen ed the context оf into an enforceable section, conjunction when viewed the affect- want 362,10unmistakably suit, issue, though longer dem- ed at none- key adjective onstrates that its pending theless must be treated as still —“void”—is sweep synonymous to be accorded a the trial Actions with before court. decided on Only the term “nonexecutable.” when so the merits not concluded rendition 8. A firm commitment to this W R G Const. Co. v. 9. For the terms of 10. 11. For the 12. post-rеmand proceeding note 337 [1979]. the 3). P.2d 344 my ¶ compliance repealed). resemblance to the treatment Vista Dev. v. 7), compliance My Henry Building Company supra dissent from our P.2d to a 2. view—that failure "otherwise than [1988], note 1. terms with O.S.1951 § There, supra note of 12 O.S.1981 100 where the court held that want of 12 O.S.1981 [1961] rendered without Hoebel, Okl., 362 constitutes an action’s pronouncement Broken —bears on the (the can be cured in a given v. Arrow, Okl, analysis explains court's Cowman, merits” within 362, unmistakable 600 P.2d was 681 with O.S. (supra infra this court see syllabus vacated Valley supra (now Okl., note 334, 696, 766 ute. The plaintiff with directions that it lowing was, as that all fails "That such collection "In upon has been assessed ble, ing such “If or defendant, dismissed allegations plaintiff’s plaintiff every or other penalties, to make the the action’s remand to the trial period, he here, has shown petition taxes, together tax fails action or suit in he was the of this Act for an issue unrelated to the merits of when terms of 68 O.S.1951 intangible personal property claim. must liability have intangible personal property assessed or the court on its own motion.” allegations demurrer or motion bond, note, compliance made, allege complaint See dealt owner upon facts with accrued interest supra reinstated paid_ every taxation under the herein any with in Cowman account receiva- supporting prove: action with a tax stat- note tax § 1515 property prescribed, *6 when, same, 6. for were: sued such dur- fol- ... statutory proce- general course of an executable are to be viewed with the nonappealable. regulates as both unterminated and the rendition and en- dure that decision, though judge’s Even merits judgments. forcement civil verdict, generally much like a civil equivalent
be considered as the functional pro- from the instant of its
nouncement, 696,13 12 O.S.1981 application cases affected adjudication 362 a merits cannot stand compliance
as a unless with that probative requirements section’s is shown In the Matter of the OF ESTATE by the record. JOHNSON, Leslie Vernon summary, contract claims mu- Deceased. nicipalities litigation are a distinct class judgmеnt may which no JOHNSON, be deemed to have Appellant, Earl A. been rendered before (and actually 362 is achieved is later BARTHOLET, Carter, Frank Nettie Ira appear made to from the recorded memori- Johnson, Walter, Johnson, Lois Sharon proceedings). al of the There seems Napier Charles Johnson and Carol specific statutory period, after Johnson, Appellees. adjudication, for the fulfillment of that sec- tion’s standards.14 No. 68621. I would not declare the instant merits Supreme Court Oklahoma. noncompliance “void” July 1989. 362; nor would I direct this suit be dismissed with without July As Corrected 1989. Instead,
prejudice. I pronounce would Rehearing Denied Oct. presently this action in pre- stands below a judgment stage; I would remand the cause
with instructions to afford the
opportunity to legally secure a executable
judgment through compliance with per-
Insofar as there be cause to my opin-
ceive views as discordant with our
ion in Oklahoma v. Green Const. [1938], Okl. or with precedent, extant would overrule
those authorities exposition as an incorrect *7 together construed power pronounсe judgment upon 13. For the terms of 12 O.S.1981 court’s supra note 1. followed proceeding. § 362 plaintiff’s compliance
14. The time limit for the provide: The terms of 12 O.S.1981 1083 might conceivably with § 362 be found to be "Any action which is not at issue and in which By that in 12 O.S.1981 the terms infra. pleading has been or other action filed plaintiffs may of this statute the have at least year taken and in which no motion or year one to secure the action’s termination during pending any part demurrer has been converting adjudica- verdict or merits preju- of said shall be dismissed without judgment through tion of their claim into com- dice the court on its own motion after pliance probative requirements parties attorneys notice to the or their apply, If does record; met, providing, upon the court writ- timely are not the action shown, good application ten and for cause could then become vulnerable to dismissal with- writing prejudice. appears out order in allow the action to remain Section 1083 only might govern time limit that its the trial docket.”