*1 OF The BOARD EDUCATION OF DISTRICT, body
GRANITE SCHOOL Utah, Plaintiff,
politic Cross-Respondent,
Appellant and body COUNTY, corporate LAKE
SALT Monson, politic and Arthur Defendant, County Treasurer, Re-
spondent Cross-Appellant.
No. 17175. Utah.
Supreme Court of 8, 1983.
Feb. *2 month, and of each the first Fisher, Casper, receipt Charles B. Salt Byron M. on March 31 a final settlement of Educ. to make City, Lake for Board Aetna Lite and year. each See Osuala Peters, Cannon, Bill Thomas Theodore L. Utah, which Casualty, 608 P.2d Lake City, Salt Avery, John harmonized should be held that statutes County. purpose the intent and carry out order *3 Treasur- undisputed that the the law. It is HOWE, Justice: with these stat- strictly comply er failed to of Education of Granite The Board utes. action (Granite) brought this District School County Lake damages from Salt seeking K. Winder entered Judge David District Monson, Lake Arthur Salt (County) and resolving the is- judgment summary partial Treasurer, (Treasurer) alleging that County as a mat- in favor liability sue of its timely pay to Granite they had failed to dam- reserving the issue of law but ter of which the Treasurer property share of the interim Granite trial. In ages for counter- collected. The Treasurer had change theory its complaint to amended its (in already of sums claimed for costs excess en- unjust at law to from one recovery of Granite) collecting, paid apportioning, of by to parties agreed The equity. in richment of Granite. distributing taxes on behalf and pro- the Treasurer also and this amendment par- both court denied relief to The district un- seeking recovery for in equity ceeded and the Treasurer appeals ties. Granite un- upon based collection costs reimbursed cross-appeals from those denials. just enrichment. sepa- collects taxes for The Treasurer E. Banks trial, Judge Jay District At the located within Salt taxing rate entities good Treasurer had “acted ruled that the then the reve- County Lake and disburses with re- manner faith and in reasonable of Dis- nues to them. On behalf collection, apportionment to the gard U.C.A., pursuant so trict he does tax monies collected of distribution 59-10-66, part: pertinent which states in that: also found him.” The court county treasurer duty It is the of of Treasurer, adopting program The ..., of each school pay to the treasurer to the various preliminary distribution ..., day first of each district are cleared his as funds taxing entities month, in his hands collected moneys all com- substantially thereby has office [sic] school for and due such ... [district] governing statutory duties with his plied pay shall county .... treasurer distribution. such school district treasurer of each ... no that there was held The court further delin- share of proportionate ... [its] show, that Gran- presented evidence taxes, interest, and costs penalty quent belong- money much prove, not how ite did redemptions there- on all tax sales the Trea- deposit by on final was from, ing and shall make a to Granite monthly, during the time March date day any given on the last of settlement surer byof Granite. each year.... period complained of U.C.A., 1953, requires: the Treasur- 53-7-10 During years on collected interest earned all er had be collected taxes shall Such general County’s to the deposit are collect- taxes on officers as other taxes county Nonetheless, trial court deter- pay the account. county and the treasurer shall ed not un- Lake was with- that to the treasurer of said board mined “Salt same collected, of Granite expense who at the days after it is enriched thirty justly through order the actions subject to the District shall hold same School trial Treasurer.” the board of education. Lake Salt that Granite also concluded court harmoniously these statutes Construed expense at the enriched unjustly funds pay the Treasurer to require the activi- County through of Salt thirty (30) days districts within to school Lake County unjust significant ties of the Treasurer enrichment had no effect uncontrovert- though upon liability even evidence is the issue since issue assess, collect, costs solely upon interpretation.of ed that it more to an depended and distribute tax monies for apportion question regardless the statutes is billed recovery. Granite School District then basis of Because amendment [sic] issue, paid by District. to and Granite School did not affect the the Treasur- basic argument simply unpersuasive er’s amendment, PARTIAL complaint SUMMARY JUDGMENT its by virtue of required that the whole case be considered Judge Granite contends that Banks’ including liability. Con- the issue departure Judge Winder’s order anew — Judge it was error for Banks to sequently, partial summary judgment constituted an the issue when it reconsider had appellate of an interlocutory review order nothing previously been resolved inter- clearly beyond authority. which was his to him in a present vened to the issue However, of an that is adjudication revision *4 light. different not may appropriate. question be The final is ap under what revision is circumstances INTERPRETATION STATUTORY propriate. See Richardson v. Grand Central Furthermore, Banks’ Judge appli Utah, (1977), 572 P.2d where with Corp., rule compliance” cation of the “substantial conflicting respect rulings pleadings to on v. Corp. in Copper outlined Kennecott analogous problem, in this a somewhat Utah, (1978).to P.2d 705 the City, ruling to by judge Court held that a one as transferring practice collect Treasurer’s in the sufficiency of the does not pleadings in district was also error. ed school revenues prevent judge considering another from the the considera Preliminarily, fundamental same of law if raised properly it is legislative interpreting tion in statutes on motion the subsequent presents a which intent; light and is determined light. case in different also ex See State designed the to purpose the statute Nelson, Stenberg rel. v. Mont. carry out the applied Intent to where, achieve. to P.2d 870 after amendments if it can be in a manner which purpose done pleadings, filing pretrial memoranda and the language with stat is consistent conference, pretrial judge sev a second Commission, v. Tax ute. Johnson action into trials separate ered an three (1966). Quoting 2d though judge, even the first who had been Statutory Construction from 1A Sutherland But see disqualified, had ordered one trial. 25.03, Kennecott, 575 at (4th Ed.) P.2d 402, 551 § City Vegas Moore of Las 92 Nev. noted: 706 we (1976), where held that a P.2d 244 it was judge abused in over which second his discretion is no rule direc- There universal judge first feature ruling only since the under all circum- tory provisions may, rehear distinguished stances, which motion for from those distinguished be ing previous the second from judge before are The intention of mandatory. which however, had was the be motions which been denied should con- legislature, gram- of additional rule of authority. trolling citation and no formalistic stand mar or word form should case, order, Judge In this Winder’s legislative intent. way carrying out judgment, was being partial summary [Emphasis added.] open changed revision if circumstances controlling justify it. would Therefore are which Generally those directions
question is whether the fact that Granite done, to be thing but one at of the essence theory recovery its changed merely to a view given are with a different which equity law to one constituted conduct prompt and proper, orderly presentation of the issue of business, obey no failure We Judge Banks. hold that Granite’s rights those whose will occur to prejudice the basis of recovery to seek amendment statute, protected by are proper orderly are not com- conduct of business. monly mandatory, rights considered of the school districts to receive [T]he provision protected will not be considered mandato- the collected revenues are statutes; and, ry if the of the statute purpose rights jeopardized has been those are no sub- when instead of distribution on a substantially complied with monthly rights stantial have been jeopardized. collection, thirty days basis or within [Emphasis over 98% of taxes Novem- added.] year prac- ber 30 of each and the transfer receipt of revenues tice in significant disharmony has been with right to the use of those revenues are sub the statutes. stantially delayed by the Treasurer’s failure following observe 59-10-66 and 53-7-10. The an indication of the offers purpose of these merely history practice: statutes is not of the Treasurer’s transfer (Treasurer Lambourne) Date Amount Transferred Transferred 13,1973 5,853,000.00 December $ 2,1974
January 140,000.00 January 7,1974 4,024,000.00 1,1974 February 1,646,000.00 February 27,1974 19,869.69 ' 28,1974 May (cid:127) 2,066,886.32 $13,749,756.01 TOTAL *5 (Treasurer Monson) 1974 Date Transferred Amount Transferred 2,1974 142,000.00 December $ 3,1974 56,200.00 December 16,1974 2,900,000.00 December 19,1974 5,000,000.00 December 9,1975 January 3,000,000.00 31,1975 January 3,000,000.00 12,1975
June 1,224,128.14 $15,322,328.14 TOTAL (Treasurer Monson) 1975 Date Transferred Amount Transferred 2,1975 1,561,453.00 December $ 15,1975 10,000,000.00 December January 5,1976 3,015,643.00 3,1976 February 163,001.00 31,1976 March 1,876,367.51 15,1976 54,201.86
June 17,1976 16,018.38 December $16,686,684.75 TOTAL (Treasurer Monson) 1976 Date Transferred Amount Transferred 7,1976 1,767,700.00 December $ 13,1976 9,713,500.00 December 17,1976 384,963.33 December 28,1976 692,000.00 December 4,1977
January 252,000.00 31,1977 2,842,945.17 March $18,029,608.50 TOTAL
1035
Board, 26 Utah
compliance”
ap
is an
Grant v. Utah State Land
“Substantial
preju
100,
(1971).
rule where no
propriately employed
2d
tax nature and the nature of
53-7-10
other revenue raised
Taxes and
part
legislation
of the Uniform School Fund
are re
apportioned
purposes
for school
carry
the Treasurer
duty
mandate a
C.J.S.,
*6
412(a)
funds. 79
garded as trust
§
purposes
timely
out the
distribution
v.
(1952).
at 279
Cf. Board
Education
preju
of revenues.
In view of this and the
97,
(1917). The
Daines,
he acts as a trustee in collecting
provides.
revenues
Mining
Wasatch
Co. v. Crescent
for other entities.
delay
Mining
8,
in transfer of
7
Company,
(1890),
Utah
Should supra. the a l. v. The legislature has Treasurer’s make compliance office with defined tax specifically what collection ex unworkable, the statutes here involved then penses county pass through may to a legislature the appropriate is the forum U.C.A., for taxing entity 17-19-15 the Treasurer to seek a change law through 17-19-17. is It reasonable that to allow for the demands of his office. This in enacting statutory these provisions the Court will continue to exercise its authority legislature advisedly limited the amount law; the interpret we refrain as- which school districts would be required suming legislature’s the task writing of it. It, therefore, reimburse. was error not Judge Banks to find that We make our prospective decision on the unjustly enriched that despite fact col liability of the Treasurer for payment lecting distributing and tax monies for of interest. Apparently practice his of de- Granite exceeded the amount imposed by laying payment of taxes to the various enti- paid appeal statute Granite. An ties is one long-standing. Yet no one has to a maxim of cannot equity overcome the challenged heretofore practice that in the express our provisions of on the statutes courts. This is the first case to reach this subject. trial is court affirmed on this Court on the subject. may It extremely be point. disruptive government to county to be sud- subjected denly to liability payment for the is so that a judgment case remanded sizeable amounts interest for which consistent with this opinion may be entered. county budgeted. end, has not In it Parties to stand their own costs. county taxpayers who will suffer the brunt of the Treasurer’s omission. Justice STEWART, J., and VeNOY CHRISTOF- will be best served our our giving deci- FERSEN, District Judge, concur. today sion prospective application only.
DURHAM, J., does not here- participate in; CHRISTOFFERSEN, Judge, District COUNTERCLAIM sat. The Treasurer not deny does that Granite expenses required collection OAKS, (concurring dissent- Justice statute; he argues simply that because it ing): cost tomore collect Granite’s share affirming I in the opinion concur paid, than Granite he should be allowed to denial of Treasurer’s relief recover the difference. The basis of his expenses for the excess col- counterclaim argument sought is that equi- since Granite portions lection. I also concur those ty, compelled it should be to do equity. (1) that opinion concluding complied substantially (cid:127)Treasurer had not recognized We have right (2) statutory with the requirements, the Legislature impose a duty upon city holds the taxes he County Treasurer county officers to collect taxes for pur earnings their in trust for the collects and poses county other than purposes and to do them,1 whom he collected entities for so or compensation with without for the no de- governmental immunity expenses incurred. Tax Comm’n. suit for fense District’s Logan, to.Granite School City of 88 Utah *8 no (1986); Foods, Christensen, express opinion relief in I equity. Best Inc. v. 392, applying appropriateness majority’s (1930); P. 1001 Board of Dist., of County prospectively. Education Cache et its rule School “proportionate share” “make a 1. In addition to the reasons in Justice tricts their cited opinion, specified confirm time Howe’s 59-I0-66’s reference to final settlement” a moneys the collections “collected for” the school districts and that the school districts own only pay its them in trust. command that the Treasurer the dis- the holds Treasurer I the denial of relief to dissent from The its fact equitable Granite on claim.2 Utah, Plaintiff and STATE much of its prove
that Granite did not how Respondent, on any Treasurer held money County made a given date is irrelevant. Granite HICKEN, Defendant Robert showing County that the Trea- prima facie Appellant. moneys of its trust surer had held some exceeding thirty-day statu- periods for 18321. No. tory misappropriated limit and had Court of Utah. Supreme is periods. obtained for those This earnings fact that evident from the over 98% Feb. 1983. been November 30 taxes have year considerably of each but less than 98% days have been over beneficiary having
after time. The that
made breach of prima showing facie
trust, had burden of the trustee
accounting for its administration means, By
trust the burden funds. of the infor- party possession
falls to the
mation, and all doubts will be resolved principles These
against it. are well-settled E.g.,
of trust law. Malcolmson v. Goodhue Bank,
County 198 Minn. National (1936); Bogert, Trusts & Trus-
N.W. 157 G. 1962); (2d Restatement
tees ed.
(Second) (1959). These of Trusts § to
principles apply should all fiduciaries. obliged Treasurer
account to the Granite School District for
all it on tax funds earnings has obtained for the statu- beyond
held in trust
tory period.3 This relief essential to legislative on how
integrity of directions
funds various taxes shall be ex- raised I remand with
pended. would therefore against
instructions to enter decree and its Treasurer on the issue proceed accounting and to an
liability damages. the amount of
determine C.J.,
HALL, concurring concurs OAKS, J. dissenting opinion actually unproductive Only Judge were 3. if the funds I 2. also dissent from conclusion statutory apply partial or other the court the issue would Banks could reconsider case, any In liability. plaintiffs equita- rate of interest. theoretical substitution on majority’s to “interest overdue legal surely references suffi- ble for ones offered claims equity inapposite. suit in summary partial debts” cient basis reconsider ownership, not debt. judgment on is based since such substitution recovery. necessary changed the elements