*1 light it in and considered of evidence testimony. trial court was in Cheryl CLAY,

witness’s Assessor for Tulsa judge probative value position to the best County, Oklahoma, Appellee, prejudice the evidence of potential The court determined past conduct.1 Cates’ properly was not admissi- that this evidence INDEPENDENT NO. SCHOOL DISTRICT find no of discretion as would ble. We abuse COUNTY, Oklahoma; 1 OF TULSA reversing the trial court’s decision to

warrant Clyde Cathy Newsom, Moore, D. Walter such evidence. exclude Judy Hushbeck, Nancy Allen, Eason- Ill Ellis, McIntyre, Doug Dodd and Dale Independent Members of School District CONCLUSION County, Oklahoma; Inde No. of Tulsa employer stipulates that an em- When pendent School District No. 5 of Tulsa acting scope employ- ployee is within County, Oklahoma; Francisco, Mike puni- at the time of an altercation and ment Maples, Mills, Billie Ben Don Chalmers damages are available it under tive Terry Almon, Indepen Members of theory respondeat superior, addi- dent District No. 5 of Tulsa School negligent hiring exposes tional claim for Oklahoma; County, Independent Hence, employer liability. to no additional County, School District No. of Tulsa summary properly gave judg- trial court Oklahoma; Larry Stigal, Kornegay, J.B. theory Shop ment to N Save on the latter Orr, Marilyn Dale Claude Marshall and liability. Hinkle, Independent Members of School Where there was adduced evidence show- 11, Appellants. No. District ing aggressor who the initial in an altercation was, it is not reversible error to exclude No. 81882. party’s past evidence of a character and be- antagonist’s identity. havior to establish the Supreme Court of Oklahoma. specially This true when the trial court determines excluded evidence would be Feb.

unduly prejudicial. The decision of the Appeals

Court Civil VACATED. The

ruling of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

SUMMERS, V.C.J., HODGES,

SIMMS, WATT, JJ., HARGRAVE and

concur.

KAUGER, C.J., concurs in result. WILSON, J., part;

ALMA concurs in part.

dissents in

OPALA, J., dissents. 2404(B) 2404(B). pertinent 1. See 12 O.S.1991 2403 and terms of are: pertinent crimes, terms of 2403 are: wrongs, Evidence of other or acts is pro- Relevant evidence be excluded if its prove not admissible to the character of a substantially outweighed by bative value is the the person conformity in order to show action in danger prejudice, unfair confusion of therewith.... issues, misleading jury, delay, undue need- evidence, presentation less cumulative surprise. unfair and harmful

296 *3 Fist, Mann, Douglas Jerry David L. J. Richardson, Rosenstein, Ringold, &Fist Tul- sa, Appellants. Moss,

David Tulsa District Attor- Semler, ney, J. Dennis Assistant District At- Tulsa, torney, Appellee. Turner, Fowler,

John B. Rebecca M. Doer- Stuart, ner, Saunders, Daniel, Anderson & Biolchini, Tulsa, for Amicus Curiae Public Company Service of Oklahoma. Roger Toppins, City, K. Oklahoma for Amicus Bell Telephone Curiae Southwestern Company. Tulsa, Barnes, B. for

Deborah Amicus Cu- Transok, riae Inc.

SUMMERS, Justice. recently requires enacted statute County inspect visually Assessor to and re- property value real for ad valorem taxation purposes. provides apportionment It for among the Assessor’s revaluation costs recipients local of the tax revenues. The County are three defendants Tulsa school paid districts who have not their share of the expense. plaintiff Assessor’s revaluation Assessor, Tulsa who wants them to so. Must pay do the school districts Assessor, proce- and if so are the what get paid? dures the Assessor must use to We conclude that the Assessor use during the fiscal to obtain payment year’s budget, from that school and (2) if the Assessor’s come after claims may get end of the fiscal the Assessor judgment payable from the school’s expense fund when the in- revaluation was budget, cluded in the school district’s judgment complies when the with the Okla- judg- homa Constitution statutes ments school districts. For reasons explained prospective our holding part. District

The case tried Court of County. Tulsa The result was that the trial subdivision, municipal such or other way of mandamus ordered court payment coupons, They to be used for the their share. districts school bonds, provided by judgments law. Appeals affirmed. appealed and the Court certiorari to resolve this granted have We Additionally, sinking fund of a district public of broad concern. matter “shall consist all derived ad provided by

valorem taxes or otherwise as I. payment judgments law for the of bonds and and interest thereon.” O.S.1991 1-119. requiring the Assessor to con- The statutes budget For inspection program visual duct revaluation cost to a fund cost in the property taxable real outstanding qualify must indebtedness are 68 purpose of valorem taxes O.S.1991 ad authority created under of Sections 26 and/or The annual Constitution, 27 Article 10 or to to the office is submitted Assessor’s bonds, judgments, interest thereon. (or County Board), Budget Excise Board Clearly, § include 26 does not the Assessor’s provision adequate make that board must costs, since indebtedness created inspection program. the costs of the requires people a vote O.S.Supp.1992 2822. The Assessor’s cost purpose, the revaluation apportioned inspection program costs is not made such election.1 The among recipients various revenues *5 § may be same said 27 indebtedness levied, including from the mill rates coun- the people a of the at an towns, districts, created vote election ty, all cities and all school that purpose.2 held for recipients. sinking and all funds of such 68 2823(B). O.S.Supp.1992 § The Assessor ren- Sinking coupons, pay funds are used to jurisdictions, ders a statement to each of the bonds, 331; § 62 judgments. O.S.1991 districts, including required are school that § pay- 70 The O.S.1991 1-119. revaluation pay proportionate to their cost. That state- coupon not a or Neither ment is bond.3 is year must “The fiscal ment include current judgment, the a payment revaluation since a incorporated charge the has been is final determination of the the jurisdiction’s budget.” O.S.Supp.1992 the 68 rights parties in an 12 of the action. O.S. 2823(D)(1). § sum, pay- § 1991 In a school district’s that ment to assessor for district’s share pay- The school districts to have seek expense the revaluation not one of the expense ments of the revaluation come from statutorily charges against sinking a allowed sinking fund. The definition fund, and cannot be included in the district’s § provided by fund is 62 O.S.1991 331: budget charge against as a fund. required pro- All funds to Fourth. be levy argue pay vided ad valorem tax to out- The school districts that revalua- standing paid payments budgeted created au- tion not be indebtedness under need thority general 26 of Section Section from the funds the districts as and/or Constitution, hereby expenses. They Article de- annual that the un- contend “Sinking to budgeted payments paid clared constitute the Fund” of be from sink- begins following: "Except begins following: "Any 1.Section with the 27 with the 26 Section may, by incorporated city provided, or town in this State county, city, herein as otherwise no majority qualified property paying town, tax district, vot- township, political school or other town, city voting ers of such or at an election state, corporation or subdivision of shall be purpose, that held for allowed become indebted, manner, any allowed become or indebted....” any purpose, exceeding, to an amount year, provided income revenue for such West, City See Lawton Okla. P. year without the assent of three-fifths of the (1912), bond); (defining 62 O.S.1991 thereof, election, voting voters at an held bond); (defining coupon § 591 62 O.S.1991 purpose,...." § for that two versions of § (coupon represents due on a interest during year in effect the fiscal at issue contain bond); Jones, and 2 L. Bonds and Bond Securi- language. ties, (discussing coupon as evidence bond). to demand of interest aon ing judgments if allow pro- funds the districts ate a current and annual revaluation be taken the districts in the amounts gram funding mechanism more than payments. disagree. We year one in duration. result Such a contra- venes both statute and the OHahoma Consti- school scheme indicates that operation tution as of both the school expenses districts revaluation for a districts and the Assessor’s office. during year. year current fiscal that fiscal expense particular for a incorporated budget into of the school II. year. O.S.Supp.1992 2823(D)(1). political Our Constitution states jurisdiction’s § aWhen operate subdivisions of the and mill State must on a approved by rate not prevent billing cash extending Excise Board the statement basis indebtedness does 2823(D)(1), beyond year, conform to public but must instead one unless the has autho expressly payments that the state are “due rized the debt election held for that payable by December 31 of the current City purpose. Del v. Fraternal Or year.” Additionally, states statute Police, Lodge der No. that the current charges Assessor’s (Okla.1994). provision applies This payments the revaluation equal should both districts school and a assessor.5 total inspection program’s visual budget for 2823(D)(3). determining year. particular current fiscal Id. at whether obligation a scope is “debt” within explained We have that our State Constitu- has this Court looked to the nature of the requires carry tion school districts “to and the to enforce the operations cash, you their obligation.6 statutory obligation allocating Gossett, go plan.” Dist. No. 2 v. School obligations government financial between en Okla. 283 P. Gentis historically tities is one has been treated Hunt, Okla. P. 358 assumpsit, one or contract. Judicial argue for a districts scheme where *6 of a statutory obligation capable enforcement payments school districts’ for a fiscal current year being of payments certainty reduced to was an judgments are shifted to on in i.e., contract, subsequent years.4 assumpsit, action in This would have the ef and the fect shifting oper- obligation of Assessor’s quasi-eontractu- funds to referred to was as may judgment paid 4. A be in fiscal lowed one to become indebted...." Okla. Const Art. year surplus if funds available. 62 O.S.1991 10 26. levy pay § 365.6. However and tax to a judgment begins judgment. payment with of of the one-third jurisprudence 6.Our in this area has included money judgment against A a discussing opinions particular whether a item manner, paid following district "shall in the debt, tax, special was a or a or a assessment. paid no in other manner” accor- in Hollis, example, City in For Wilson v. 193 of judgment dance with 62 365.5. O.S.1991 The 241, (1943), Okla. 142 P.2d 633 the court over- spread levy on a for third as to the first holding prior opinion ruled a in a and held that judgment. levy judg- The Id. special the item at issue was a assessment and a equal ment is to one-third of the amount debt than a tax. This a rather allowed bondhold- original judgment when one-third of that amount judgment er to convert debt into a with 431, unpaid. §§ remains due and 62 O.S.1991 fund, payment sinking provided from a that the Grady County 435. See Excise Board v. of 636, 829, (1943), complied judg- Griggs, 138 bondholder with those statutes 192 Okla. P.2d 831 (judgment a creditor entitled to have a tax levied ments fund and Okla. Const. judgment one-third of the each until it is Art. Id. 142 A tax 10 28. P.2d at 640. is not full); paid City in Education Board Drum judgment paid a converted into of of of right County, v. Board Commissioners Creek funds, provided by but is enforced in the manner of of 464, (1935), (court 171 P.2d Okla. 43 139 ex Independent statute the tax. See School Dist. plained right of creditor to of Co., 176, 210, Exchange v. Nat. 164 Okla. upon one-third each §§ based O.S.1931 (1933), part, City overruled in in Wilson v. of 5913, 5919, codified now at 62 O.S.1991 Hollis, supra. For a discussion of taxes versus 431, 435). Tulsa, special Blythe City see assessments v. 586, 310, (1935). Okla. 312-313 provision begins 5. The constitutional with language: "Except provided, as otherwise herein county, no ... school district ... shall be ál- quasi-contract via obligation as remedied quasi-con- enforcement al.7 Judicial legal tradition of with the rich in accord an action in statutory obligation via

tractual way statutory enforcing duties (contract) govern- two assumpsit between quasi-contract.9 commonplace two was mental entities 1817, legislative a early as as states pay the revaluation funding has intragovemmental allocation quasi-con quasi-contractual. expense is legislatively recog- judicially and been both obligation is one where tractual obligation is con in this State.8 Our as where the in other contexts is the same nized Triple Insur- v. Crown tractual. Shebester statutory to treat conclusion th(5 Cir.1985), 364, citing, Metropolitan gave to an every a statute rise breach of 7. Not Columbia, 1, example, a breach 132 U.S. quasi-contract. For Railroad Co. v. District action imprisonment 19, (1889). resulting could in false Circuit of a statute 33 L.Ed. 231 That 10 S.Ct. trespass, while an action in an action in explained Wyandotte result Co. v. United Court then pay- required the statute States, 191, 379, would lie when debt 19 L.Ed.2d U.S. 88 S.Ct. being capable to a reduced in an amount ment (1967), a vessel owner failed to fulfill where unliquidated damages. certainty, opposed to vessel, statutory duty a to remove sunken its 624, Bell, Mason 4 Fed.Cas. v. Bullard removal, thereaf government effectuated its course, was, (1817). Assumpsit an 639-640 brought an action to recover the cost of ter upon types certain of contracts. action based explained Court removal. The Circuit Dixon, S.E. v. 70 S.C. Welborn (1904). application Wyandotte interpreted had been obligation statutory enforced as- quasi-contractual principles found of traditional quasi-contract. sumpsit came to be labeled as F.2d at of Restitution. 756 in the Restatement Ames, History Assumpsit, 2 Harv.L.Rev. recognized long a statuto have 374. Courts words, quasi-contract In other 63-69 quasi-contract ry duty could be the basis law, obligation imposed by was was where the Augner Mayor, example, et al. action. For v. using enforced the action and the York, App.Div. New theOf Triple Crown of contract. Shebester breach N.Y.Civ.Pro.Rep. al 43 N.Y.S. 803 Insurers, (Okla.1992). For though majority and dissent differed on the (2 Joliffe, example, Steamship see Co. v. 69 U.S. statute, they agreed application that the 450, 457, Wall.) where that 17 L.Ed. 805 quasi-contractual. 26 N.Y.Civ.Pro. action was statutory obligation noted that a Court 169, 171, Rep. dissent at 43 N.Y.S. quasi-con obligation in pilotage fees created an Barrett, J., explained: what "This action is tract. quasi aptly contract. It is not has been termed Bell, contract, is, 1 Mason 4 Fed.Cas. agreement 8. See Bullard upon genuine (1817), explained Story defendant, where Justice plaintiff and either ex fact between Hampshire practice in New that it was common simply upon press, implied; it is assumpsit Massachusetts for towns use liability, which is sufficient to sustain an action responsibility adjudicating statutorily based fiscal formerly assump- analogous called to what was Blankenship paupers. v. Atoka In State ex rel. at 43 N.Y.S. 803. In Inhabitants sit." *7 (Okla.1969), explained County, we 456 P.2d 537 Commonwealth, 64, N.E. v. 144 Mass. 10 Milford using tax revenues to a that portion ad valorem against brought by was the town 516 suit salary attor- of an assistant district recovery expenses the for the of Commonwealth 9,§ ney Art. 10 not violate Okla. Const. did support pauper. of a state incurred in the to the was secured because a benefit under the action: "... actions court described thereby. Another ex- Id. 456 P.2d at 540-541. money expended have statutes to recover approved ample legislatively cost allocation of usually The law been actions of contract.... government § is 70 O.S.1991 5- between entities money expended implied regards as at the the apportions the costs where the excise board 114 defendant, promise request a among county treasurer of the services of the liability implied to be from the the is said using of the treasurer. those districts the services a contract is some created the statute.... implied when there is no inten times said be v. Bell to cases such as Bullard 9. In addition contract, agreement and no of tion to create a 8, remedy quasi-contractual a supra, at the n. obligation imposed parties, law an but the has giving concept a that has historical roots in cases obligation is enforced as if it were an which entity quasi-contract governmental a action case, arising In such a there is not ex contractu. statutory failing perform against duties, their those contract, obligation lege." Id. a and the arises ex concluding cases that a viola- and those 65, recovery statutory at 10 N.E. 516. The statutory duty may a be the basis of an tion of quasi-contract. action in fees has also been quasi-contract. Supreme "The Court action in Joliffe, supra Steamship at n. 7 and See Co. v. quasi-contractual a has a has held that defendant Christian, (1849), (fees 10 Pa. 233 statu Harris v. government obligation the when it to reimburse paid magistrate torily required did not to be discharging defendant costs in the incurs contract, STCO, implied promise). but an perform.” 756 F.2d create a not U.S.v. would P/B ers, (Okla.1992). (a.) appropriations against 826 P.2d The rem which each judgment paid and a warrant was drawn or claim civil ac- edies judgment, if if crued in within the fund used to enforce the purposes provided by limits thereof as part in explained as III revaluation law; § O.S.1991 herein are the same those used enforce judgment No shall against be rendered obligations of a school district. contractual any municipality by any court until treating By quasi-contractual hereof, provisions of Section have been obligation ques in as contractual nature the fully complied Any judgment with. ren- applicability tion arises as to the of 62 O.S. provisions dered in violation of this §§ 361-863.10 act shall void and of no effect. judgment any Before final suit based O.S.1991 against any contract shall be rendered sure, are, There quasi-contractual some municipality any court of obligations governmental entity of a not sub- Oklahoma, proof the State of ... shall be ject to provisions §§ of 62 O.S.1991 361- existence, made to the court of the charac- purpose judg- fund outstanding legal ter and amount of in- i.e., they ment not treated contractual municipality, debtedness of said obligations.11 However, application proof shall ... include judgment §§ 361-362 to a a school 3. An in- itemized statement expense, district for this whether labeled as proposed debtedness to be converted “judgment,” “mandamus” or is consistent show, judgment, into a so as to classified with how this court has viewed the efforts of exhibits, separate ques- all parties items in bringing actions in mandamus in legality, any, attempts tionable if statutory reasons to avoid limitations on or judgments said officer officers process.12 Additionally, appli- therefor: Generally, quasi-contract pro- explained plaintiff an action cates. We that in such suits a remedy required appropri- vided with the same as in contract. She was not to show the of an fact Insurers, Triple supra. expense bester v. Crown This is ation for the refund because refund Coury, Company shown va.T & S v. was Investment not in the nature of a contract. Board of (Okla.1979) explained 593 P.2d 503 where we Commissioners Creek v. St. Co., applying Ry. statute limitations for contracts that Louis-San Francisco 170 Okla. (1935). obligation quasi-contract appli holding when an is in This indicates statutory provisions remedy cable for a in con that an action not to be was considered contrac- apply. judgment purpose tract in an in contract tual §§ action of 62 O.S. 361-363 when Thus, against municipality, including sought. dis tax refund was trict, judgment comply illegal is void if the does tax refund sales certifi- Valley Development Corp., quasi-contractual with Vista Inc. cate funds via Arrow, purpose Broken 766 P.2d not treated as contractual for Dodd, Mead & Co. v. Union Graded 361-363. School Dist. No. Okla. comply aWhen must with Collins, example, 12.For in Carter v. 174 Okla. not, jurisdictional. and it does flaw is brought taxpayer P.2d 203 Tulsa, Baylis City 687-688 refund, seeking action in mandamus a tax and he (Okla.1989). jurisdictional court This examines three-year claimed that the statute of limitations occurring flaws the face *8 on of the record. Lin statutory liability on actions to enforce did not coln Bank and Trust v. Tax Oklahoma Commis apply. said: The court “We observe that al- sion, (Okla.1992); 827 P.2d Hall v. though mus, designated the one in action as manda- (Okla.1989); Edge, 782 P.2d Cate v. mandamus, yet nothing and is in it is form Co., (Okla.1985). Archon Oil Collins, by more nor less an action Vernon than designated plaintiff, the to collection enforce of by quasi-contractual money 11. This is the his refund shown obli- claim for a involved.” refunding gations concluding for certain We have Id. 50 In that taxes. P.2d at 206. the action it, explained untimely that an action for a tax refund is for was court we construe the said: "As money Tway, dealing had we and received. See R.R. Inc. v. are here with a action civil for the Commission, thereof, recovery money Oklahoma Tax 979 n. as a of refund or to (Okla.1995). quasi-contract payment money, This action in was enforce of a claim for re- form, by plaintiffs, gardless authority used under of O.S.1931 we hold be such a its it to civil seeking recovery by money provi- § when the action as was intended to be the barred spent purchase illegal § for the sale sions O.S. [12 95].” tax certifl- of section O.S.1931 is that an district’s The view school districts §§ 361-362 to a school

cation of from an annual required paid item be with how obligation is consistent revaluation budget may unbudgeted and statutorily fiscal remain imposed has viewed this Court in form of paid sinldng then from funds the a obligations school districts. fiscal paid judgment. expense an is to be When by imposed law Many obligations are ordinary from the tax revenues those expend mon- require school districts to expended payment are without revenues obligations these ey them. The fact that expense, resulting payment the the by law a district imposed does not excuse are from the could judgment fund result in the district’s budgeting these items from levy on property in an additional tax judgment against a budget, and a fiscal judgment. O.S.Supp. citizens to against an is not district authorized school 435; 365.5; § §§ O.S.1991 expense unbudgeted of this nature. the school 3017. The view of O.S.1991 in officials re- example, school For funding could result in a school districts budget to appropriation an for their quested whereby expense items practice annual are Carter, buy 148 Okla. new buses. Protest of by in funded an increase taxes voted request was 296 P. 485 Their by people. upon procedure This was they acquire the buses denied and decided to Carter, supra, condemned Protest of appropriation. the bus an When without v. Board characterized Graves judicial compel company a action to filed County, 170 Commissioners Cimarron judg for a payment the school district asked 532, 533, Okla. against it so that the ment to be rendered penalizing taxpayers the acts method for paid sinking funds. The buses could be from failing public perform officials their duties. argued the district school officials that at We conclude that an Assessor statutory duty of bought the buses to fulfill a money judgment against tempting to obtain transportation, words of one pupil paid by sinking a school district funds asHng “were for a of the officials comply with 62 361-363.13 must O.S.1991 pay for these Id. 296 P. at 489. trucks.” An Assessor must show the District Court explained legislatively re- This Court appropriation that an was made to expenditures pupil transportation quired expense. for the revaluation O.S. appropriation pursuant to be to a “valid had 1991 362. of the confusion Because words, purpose.” Id. In fiscal other proper as to District Court expenses of subdivision of State holding on type this of ease we make our paid 1, 1997, are to be from funds collected July prospective beginning issue year expenses, other fiscal and not from explain in our we will Conclusion. Similarly, required legislatively funds. III. paid by a expense must to a valid pursuant school district The District issued a writ of Court compel payment appropriation purpose. mandamus the immediate 210, explanatory allowing 50 P.2d at cite added. See trict officials the district to become in- Id. ap- debted in excess of estimate made and explaining the discussion in that "In also Carter year. proved the excise board for the fiscal practice resorts to the modem where claimant Graves v. Board due, Commissioners Cimarron as in the writ of to collect (1934), County, 170 Okla. 39 P.2d 532 bar, we is and the case at think the rule should where Court relied O.S.1931 action, though case it be in be that in such brought against action in contract was mandamus, is form in the time when barred after compel printing expenses to publication ordinary civil the same or action to enforce publication of tax lists. The right is barred the statute.” Id. at similar required requested treasurer and explained then cases 207. The court its earlier explained We pay money obli- law. that contractual holding place of an exe- that mandamus used in gations public funds void period cution was limited the same of time *9 they are in when excess or in the absence an that an execution limited to had the would be appropriation Id. 39 P.2d at 534. See therefor. plaintiff process. used that Id. form of (eff. July § also 1996 Okla.Sess.Laws Ch. 178 9 1, 1996), (to 5-157) § be at 70 O.S. and codified expenditure is prohibition authorizing any This conclusion consistent with 62 O.S. its prohibition upon appropriation § 479 and its school dis- that exceeds the therefor. 1991

303 expenses by seq., apply of the revaluation defen- 75 O.S.1991 250.1 et does parties appeal dants. On discuss wheth- to counties or performing essentially entities in issuing er the District Court was correct § local functions. 75 250.5. O.S.1991 The writ, whether the District Court and District appellate Court could not exercise review the Excise properly exercised over jurisdiction over Excise Board’s decision Board. budget. part on Assessor’s That District appellate order exercising Court’s to attempted The District Court exercise jurisdiction affirming and the Excise Board (1) jurisdiction appellate an as tribunal re- reversed, is (2) District Court has no Board, viewing Excise an jurisdiction. such application by for a writ of mandamus improper Assessor. The former was but the proper remedy for an Asses latter was authorized. Neither OMahoma’s seeking payment during sor fiscal is (75 Procedures Administrative Act O.S.1991 by application an in the Dis § § 250.1 nor 12 seq.) pro- et O.S.1991 951 districts, trict Court the school vide a appel- mechanism District Court proper, against when the Excise Board as late in review Excise Board this case. well. an Excise appropri When Board fixes challenged pay The schools ations for a at a lesser amount ments to to be made the Assessor invok legal duty do, it than was its to the board ing statutory right their appear to before the may, during year, correct the dis “comments, provide Excise Board to infor appropriations. trict’s v. Lowden Caddo concerning mation and documentation” Bd., County 213, Excise 176 Okla. 55 P.2d budget submitted the Assessor. 68 472, 474 County Greer Excise Board 2822(B). O.S.Supp.1992 § op This Lowden, 7, 612, v. Okla. 57 P.2d 616 portunity governmental entity appear (1936). may tempo Board Excise make protest, merely opportuni is not a tax but an boards, rary appropriations for school 68 O.S. ty governmental entity provide one 3020, § supplemental well as legislative acting information to another in appropriations, additional 68 O.S.1991 capacity creating budget. See 3021; Co., Protest Cities Gas Service County, Ardmore v. Bd. Excise Carter Of 162 Okla. 19 P.2d 546 We re 516, 197 Okla. P.2d where this cently explained procedure this Excise Board explained Court that the Board Excise acts Board, County in Morton v. Adair Excise legislature” “in capacity apportion (Okla.1989). 780 P.2d ing purposes. taxes for During the fiscal the Asses provides Section 951 of certain review may original file involving judicial sor an action the District acts the exercise of mandamus, legislative thereby for a discretionary function.14 The Court writ compel determination as the amount of the the school board to include its asses- budget judicially budget, approve, pur- sor’s is not reviewable and the Excise Board to an O.A.P.A., expense.15 to 12 appropriation suant O.S.1991 951. for the revaluation required 951 states: O.S.1991 to take certain ministerial acts it is subject per to mandamus when it has failed to rendered, made, or final order them); form v. Board Graves Commissioners tribunal, exercising judicial board or officer County, Cimarron 170 Okla. functions, jurisdiction and inferior the dis- (1934), (Court explained authori court, reversed, trict vacated or modified necessary appro ties who faff or refuse make except appeal the district court where priations might compelled by timely so to do provided by some other court law. mandamus); Morris, action for Webster v. (1928), (counties Osage See Okla. had Board Commissioners 264 P. Prentice, obligation by publishing Okla. law costs of notices, Court where this affirmed trial court certain and mandamus would be used to compel compelled approve ap writ that commissioners to re estimate or excise board costs). quest supplemental appropriation propriation the ex the revalu amount of Ry. expense cise St. board. See also Louis-San Francisco ation included in the assessor's Board, Craig County subject Co. v. Excise 204 Okla. to the discretion of the excise board. (1951) (when (Okla.1988). Humphrey Denney, the excise board P.2d 833 *10 304 war- proper issue the mandatory levy, appropriate, and not include does

When year.17 during that fiscal may compelled payment to rant for Board the Excise item First Ameri- budget. to a See add the item proceeding to a mandamus In County Board Trust Co. v. can Bank & expense compel payment of the revaluation County, P.2d Blaine 530 Commissioners of both that Assessor must show (Okla.1974) that 121, we observed 124 where in the Asses sought was included amount levy proper for must make a a board bud budget and in the school district’s sor’s have other officials purposes fund when for the money appropriated If was get. compel a issue to to act. A writ will failed expense mandamus is district’s then by required appropriations to make board remedy compel payment preferred to provisions.16 constitutional or year.18 expense If an is not during the fiscal sought pay- immediate writ is When the levy application an appropriation an may within year plaintiff during the fiscal ment payment fails.19 requesting necessary to for mandamus those officials join as defendants 293, (1912), (court directed to County P. 1106 Okla. Commissioners McIntosh 16. Board 20, 746, (1935), proceeding board of because dismiss mandamus Kirby, Okla. 49 P.2d authority county have to deputy commissioners did not (statutory position court clerk could salary year by provide against fiscal in excess allow claims fund in abolished failure to not be County approved fund position); Bd. Mar made and for that Little v. Excise of the estimate 40, 1080, county County, year). 1081- excise board Okla. 16 P.2d that In shall Chaffin (writ (1932), compel levy appropriation to excise board to issued reduced a reduced appropriate county agricultural agent. coun funds estimated board of to ty the office of the witnesses, jury jurors, compelling agent sought commissioners for a writ of mandamus ex salary expenses. fiscal when appropriation pay commissioners for current to appropriations for these ex plaintiff board made no cise the trial that if the had shown court said penses constitutional obli used to fulfill the the excise board could have made the court how jury pursuant gations open trials to courts and requested appropriation provide to the funds 6, 19). Okla. Const. Art. II levy staying the writ would have while within its granted. P.2d at 482. The been Id. 45 Blundell, Fortinberry e.g., 206 Okla. 17. See agent's request denied because the for funds was (1952), (writ compel issued to State 242 P.2d approved levy. In funds were not within the fund, to to reinstate Tax Commission Treasurer judgment justice plaintiff in the Deal obtained a fund, deposits Budget Director to make to that payment peace court for services fund, against approve State certain claim that compelling sought the excise board to mandamus thereon, a warrant and State Auditor to issue judgment. appropriate pay to funds pay out of the fund or if Treasurer to the warrant could not be court concluded register properly were insufficient to the funds underlying judg- granted because the claim warrant). and endorse appropriation, and "[t]o ment was not within an permit municipalities hold otherwise would be to explained Board Commission 18. We expressly indirectly accomplish that which is to Ry. Creek v. St. Louis-San Francisco ers of prohibited art. 10 of the Constitu- section Co., 170 Okla. indebted, tion, any become man- to wit: ‘... ignore plaintiff a fund that in that a ner, any purpose, exceeding, an amount or for appropriated money pay ex a certain cludes year, provided the income and revenue and, obtaining judg pense ment, by bringing suit and year, without the assent of three-fifths of the such ” of costs of the throw the additional burden at 861. In Shan- voters thereof.' Id. 64 P.2d judgment upon action and interest plaintiffs sought compel mandamus to non the money appropriated county. If the was county approve the board of commissioners money expense and exists in fund payment there- and order the warrants in claims require the offi is mandamus court, was the trial for. Mandamus issued from the fund. Id. cial appeal with was reversed but proceeding. the mandamus directions to dismiss e.g., ex rel. v. Excise Bd. 19. See State Chaffin explained court that the commission- Okmulgee County, 172 Okla. allow a claim ers were not authorized to (1935), (record appropri- failed show in excess of the esti- a fund fiscal agent salary ation approved for the fund for that mate made and levy and denial of manda- within the limits of the year. appeal); Deal v. Excise Bd. mus was affirmed on analysis. County, a similar 64 P.2d 859 State funds have received Pontotoc 179 Okla. Carter, (1937), pay justice Lingo-Leeper Okla. (county Lbr. Co. v. had no applica- appropriat- the court denied an peace in excess of the amount of the ed, noting of mandamus that Okla. denial of mandamus af- tion for writ and trial court’s Davidson, firmed); prohibited payment Const. Art. 5 Shannon v. State ex rel.

305 authority judgment cited the dissent not fund for unbudgeted does annual fiscal expenses thereby penalize taxpayers, and the contrary.20 support a rule to the If the adopt we the view that officials should use money appropriated to was the school board appropriate the remedies to insure that such spent funds then but those have been manda- properly budgeted paid, items are and for fis- payment during mus immediate that year surplus wifi funds cal be denied unless say they The school districts now general to the and could transferred fund money pay, have to year no the fiscal and payment.21 for used Mandamus for immedi- lapsed prior appeal being to the filed in this year if payment ate will be denied the fiscal explained payment Court. We have that lapsed.22 allowing has Instead of a expense annual current is not to be treasury except pursuant Smiley to approp from the State a hands of the Treasurer in was not appropriation. Treasurer, valid Later in State ex State County rel. merely riated to the as he was Principal Funding Corpo- custodian, Public v. Bd. holding, belonging as the funds to the Affairs ration, (Okla.1974) 519 re- P.2d 503 the court words, city. showing appropri In other no of an stating Lingo-Leeper to ferred that "We denied expense by city ated the Treasurer to the was grounds liability depended the writ on the that Smiley, expense by needed in as no the Treasurer entirely upon there valid whether had been a was made. appropriation building for the construction of the appropriation.” there a and had not been valid Commissioners, County 21. Bell v. Board 335 519 at Id. P.2d 633, (Okla.1959), (court P.2d 635 stated that trial argument contrary 20.The dissent's to the relies refusing court did not err in an assessor’s claim Stroud, City Braine v. 428 385 P.2d evidence when the showed there that would not t (Okla. 1963); State Nesbitt ex rel. v. District Cour money be sufficient tax to available the (Okla. Mayes 1968); County, 440 P.2d 700 claim). Pursuant to 62 O.S.1991 445 a current Tulsa, 195, Smiley City v. 159 Okla. P.2d 14 expense paid surplus origi could be from funds (1932). plaintiff sought writ 942 Braine the nating in a fund and transferred then to a damages resulting of mandamus and dis general Ry. fund. See St. Louis-San Francisco electric, water, continuance and sewer service Bd., 478, County Co. v. Ottawa Excise 201 Okla. (dam plaintiff injury property, caused an to s (1949). 207 P.2d 275 age large refrigerated supply to a and frozen food). precedent appropriation required is not Holder, 1098, 22. State ex rel. Wall v. 279 P.2d seeking recovery injury plain in an action to (Okla.1955), (county 1100 excise board statutori- property, City Cundiff, tiff’s Stillwater v. 184 ly appropriate mandated certain funds for 375, 947, (1939). 950 rel. Okla. State ex children, crippled court and also for but denial of apply. judge Nesbitt does not The trial lapse year); writ affirmed due to of fiscal Morton salary commanding did case issue writ certain 707, Board, County v. 780 Adair Excise P.2d 709 payments, pro but did not this Court decide the (Okla.1989), (although county commissioners priety regard of this with action to the issue mandatory duty provide funding had for elec- today. Additionally, before the Court trial clerk, tion board's chief the denial of the writ judge’s action has no relevance here since this mootness); Boyd due to was affirmed Clarence L. Court said: "The court's re trial is Blachly, Co. v. 171 Okla. 43 P.2d 462 deny petition with versed directions (1935), (trial court's denial writ affirmed be- Smi writ mandamus.” Id. P.2d at 708. plaintiff required purchase failed cause order, to submit ley support argument. does dissent’s sought application and the Smiley appropriations. does not discuss There machinery appropri- road tools and all funds good reason for this omission. writ issued purpose year ated had for that for the fiscal been compel Treasurer funds Morris, expended); Websterv. 129 Okla. city. control to These his funds were from (1928), (court P. declined to issue writ delinquent penalties collected on sewer assess “greatly it would 1928 since disturb” the tax city ownership ments. The claimed 1926); rolls of State ex county claimed that the Treasurer held the funds Stanfield, rel. Decker Okla. 126 P. 239 property they in trust for the owners from whom (1912), (court require issued writ to trial court to were collected. Id. 14 at 942. This P.2d issue matters, non-jury compel hear but declined to Epple, discussed Shawnee 188 Okla. perform jury court duties such trials 110 P.2d 608 where the ex court they charges against when would plained pursuant Seymour incur a de- v. Oklahoma fund). pleted principle City, per Consistent with Okla. P. 45 "the 10 expense the rule that fiscal will not be delinquency carried cent interest added after constituted years, taxing penalty, redemption by over to fiscal property successive offi- holder, city, budgets. cials cannot include such in their owner and not warrant items per Coggeshall Smiley, to said cent.” C.D. & Co. v. 142 Okla. entitled 110 P.2d at money Chicago, Unlike the in the hands of the P. In re R.I. & Protest of Co., today, Ry. in our P. districts case Okla. unpaid required by statute. If the bill is subsequent revenues of paid from the during Bd. v. Texas- the fis- Excise the Assessor files year. Tulsa Co., paid, Line Okla. Pipe require cal the amount to be Empire *12 (1937), were to be (general fund warrants necessary includ- and if for the amount to be year). that general funds of We paid from budget. the ed in the district’s Once school late to mandamus the agree it is now too that may budget the Assessor still item is the year pay the 1992 fiscal districts to year the amount even if the fiscal has recover current fiscal bud- expense from revaluation lapsed during proceeding.23 the gets. sought mandamus the The Assessor fact that mandamus But the compel payment. The rec- District Court a school does not excuse should be denied sought that the amounts were ord shows when the paying an assessor district from However, budget. in the Assessor’s included appropriated expense was revaluation silent as to whether the the record is a budget of school district. When lawful appropriated amounts were for the fiscal expense, for an that appropriation was made budgets school districts. The school unpaid, and went expense was incurred rely County upon districts Board Commis- creditor, lapsed, then the the fiscal has sioners, Muskogee, City etc. v. otherwise, judgment or obtains a Assessor (Okla.1991) judgment claim that a example, in against the school district. For against sinking funds should be allowed for Texas-Empire Bd. v. Tulsa Excise payments City to the Assessor. In Co., Pipe Line 68 P.2d 861 Okla. Muskogee, supra, explained that the As- we unpaid general fund explained we that judgment against a a sessor obtain against appropriations dur warrants issued wrongfully when the school district paid by moneys ing a fiscal would be the revaluation refuses Assessor However, during year. after collected payment. Id. 820 P.2d at 809. We reaffirm the warrants were reduced to holding. that judgments became fund obli those gations paid by sinking fund levies. Tulsa City Muskogee, supra, say in In we did Bd., P.2d at 863-864. If Excise a that the failure of an excise board footnote necessary, compel offi mandamus is used to provide levy to allocate funds or an additional levy pay judgment cials to a tax to a when operate statutory would not defeat valid judgment against a obligation becomes a obligation. Id. 820 P.2d at 809 n. 63. How- Goerke, sinking fund. State ex rel. Crane v. ever, response to a that observation was 1, 126 191 Okla. P.2d 1005 city claim that a school district or must first sum, millage proper procedure receive an increase its allocated payment the ex- Assessor to bill a school district for the excise board order meet imposes greater upon require § no burden the As- 26. We do the Assessor to make the This presented by sessor than that the dissent. The appropriations process part of the mandamus appli- requires dissent also the Assessor to file case, is, compel appropriation if not that compel payment. cation for mandamus to previously performed. exempts The dissent champions real crux of the dissent is that it requirement, Assessor from this but at the cost of compelling payment no funds have writ when disregarding increasing § Art. 10 26 and taxes purpose, appropriated we been for that while upon taxpayers. The dissent invokes the today appropriation hold that an must be the However, applicability § of 68 O.S.1991 2943. it judgment compelling payment. or basis for writ argument notes that later aban- also doned, this Legislature may trump The dissent states that the therefore, and is not addressed herein. provision requiring our school dis- constitutional argues The dissent that this Court should allow basis, i.e., legisla- operate that tricts to on a cash judgments against unbudget- fund for authority governmental create tive is sufficient to expenses Legislature ap- has ed because the obligations beyond the reach of Art. 10 proved approach. The dissent further relies payment 26 when it creates 2823(C). O.S.Supp.1994 provi- That budgeted by payor. need not be This issue us, sion is not and we have not addressed before Lodge City No. was settled in Del v. F.O.P. to, validity (Okla.1993), its as a either in addition where we ex- to, here- as an alternative the remedies discussed plained that a funds does thereby exempt from Art. 10 in. not (Okla.1984). County, pense payments They the assessor. Our stating language appeal the must then show on observation referenced trial court following: declining abused its discretion in to award Company relief. Beatrice Foods statutory language legisla- evinces (Okla.1963). Okmulgee, 381 P.2d

tive intent that once revaluation cost is They have done so. The District Court’s recipient’s budget, included in a it denying order challenge school districts’ legal expenditure. and valid do Nowhere to the amount the revaluation we find either in 2481.4 or in the statuto- affirmed. ry legislature revaluation scheme that the had the excise to in- intended for board *13 Conclusion entity’s recipient’s millage crease a for that county today to the as- reimbursement of its our case the Assessor’s during year sessed share. was to use mandamus the fiscal the compel and boards Excise Id. 820 P.2d at 806. expenses Board to include the revaluation budget”, i.e., “recipient’s dis- the school schools, in budgets the of the compel budget, trict’s must include the revaluation payments the districts to make immediate legal cost a cost make that valid and inappropriate the Assessor. Mandamus is expenditure. holding. Id. reaffirm We that year lapsed, once the fiscal has and the fiscal year July beginning completed in was Muskogee We also said ex that appeal in cluding legitimate government before the expense a filed this Court. budgets city’s budget item from a Once the could not immunize school districts were during city liability year made the fiscal validly the from for a include the incurred payments year, lapse obligation. due that of Id. 820 P.2d at We the 809-810. year language obtaining would be no bar to expansive. conclude this is too against judgment As we in civil Muskogee also noted above the school districts for expenditure legal expen budgeted unpaid. amounts left becomes fis- valid lapsed showing cal once it in has and no has been budget. diture is included budgets expense school district’s not made that of the school districts revaluation does payments legal expenditure they required by valid included the become until it were However, law make to budget is included in the assessor. we that district’s as autho decline to remand this case for the Assessor appropriate rized board. showing.

to make this IV. against The suit the school districts was approximately filed three months after the challenged School districts mandate issued Board Commis- in moving twenty-two act the Assessor sioners, City supra. v. Muskogee, etc. employees regular budget from the to the opinion upon school districts relied this budget. revaluation has Excise Board court, requested judgment trial that the determining budget discretion paid the school be districts may Assessor. This determination be re sinking agree annual three fund levies. We in a proceeding viewed trial City Muskogee could have been relied appeal subsequent court with to this Court. upon by proposi- the school officials for this (Okla. Humphrey Denney, v. 757 P.2d 833 tion. 1988). authority The trial court has the recognize may determine the Excise acted judgments whether Board We have arbitrarily by approving an payments unauthorized been obtained and made to Asses- funding request. compliance City Muskogee. Id. P.2d at 836. The sors in with presenting legal school districts had the burden of im- We decline east shadow showing propriety judgments, evidence that court such abuse we thus part discretion on ruling prospective, begin- board. make our herein Summey Tisdale, ning 1,1997. July Harry P.2d 469-470 R. Trust v. Carlile (Okla.1982); Petroleum, Rogers v. Excise Bd. Greer Cotton 445-449 districts and denied, judgment against the school

(Okla.1986), 483 U.S. cert. purposes thereby funds to be used for obtain Oklahoma L.Ed.2d 738 S.Ct. expenses for the fiscal Queen City Lodge No. other than the County v. I.O.O.F., 1992-1993. 195 Okla. post-judgment If the Assessor makes expense emphasize that the We judgment District Court showing the budget in a school district’s must included liability of the affirmed as to the shall stand may judgment obtain an Assessor before Payment of this school districts. expense. for that against a school district conform to Board Commis- shall be included expense must The revaluation sioners, Muskogee, supra, etc. an Assessor budget before a school district’s “rep- explained that such an order where we compelling may a mandamus order obtain fund resents If ex- payment. the revaluation immediate in the surplus revenues paid either out of district’s not included in the school pense is from three annual sinking fund or compel manda- Assessor must If the 820 P.2d at 810. fund levies.” Id. appropriate to include the officials mus showing Dis- make this Assessor cannot budget, and expense in the school district’s judgment and trict shall vacate its Court *14 prior pro- mandamus may done in a this proceeding. dismiss the that proceeding in a mandamus ceeding or Appeals opinion of the Court include the item those officials to both orders judgment of the District Court vacated. The officials to make in the and the school part, part affirmed in and reversed sum, judgment a payment. immediate herein, requirements imposed subject to the expense, compel payment of the revaluation disposi- and the case is thus remanded by during the fiscal mandamus

whether tion. judgment after the fiscal fund upon expense being year, must be based that C.J., SUMMERS, V.C.J., KAUGER, budget of the school district. included in the HODGES, LAVENDER, SIMMS, ALMA sought school dis- The amounts from the WATT, JJ., concur. WILSON expenses incurred tricts are for current during July 1992—June 1993 fiscal OPALA, JJ., dissent. HARGRAVE and year. lapse of the fiscal would Justice, ALA, dissenting. OP proceeding. ordinarily moot this mandamus However, light of Board Com- (a) teachings today narrows the The court supra, City Muskogee, we missioners v. of Board Commissioners against school dis- judgment affirm (which there is a Muskogee1 holds that when upon following conditions to tricts based statute-imposed duty pay revaluation upon remand to the District be satisfied costs, ordering of these a writ Court. delinquent represents costs fund may out obligation which be satisfied either show that the amounts

The Assessor shall from actually surplus revenues in that fund or sought districts were from (b) levies);2 an ad by three annual expended the Assessor. She must show transforms recipient’s statutory obligation to sought by valorem tax the funds now a ficti- necessary share of revaluation costs into are its against the school districts quasi-contractual debt that be de- replenish public fund that was tious repay or costs actually by failure to include revaluation expenses made feated used to cover those (c) budget request; year July obligor’s annual in fiscal 1992— in the Assessor availability as a 30, 1993, and that should have been constricts June statutory remedy against recalcitrant obli- payments from the school funded (d) costs; pro- gives its gors to a of revaluation The Assessor is not entitled districts. 431, 435, 19; Okl., note Board 62 O.S.1991 infra Educ., 140; Goerke, note 43 P.2d at infra note 126 P.2d at 1006. infra effect,3 prospective opinion purely legislative pow- nouncement which well-settled nullifies districts, impose political obligor-school er to makes who subdivision the these obligation for beneficial failed to include revaluation costs their services re- ceived. budget, subject statutorily-imposed Those obli- 1992-1993 stand to this (e) gations dependent are now made Muskogee teachings their court’s extant efficacy willingness support this court’s proceedings. remands this cause for further their enforcement supplying the critical today’s pronounce- I must recede from implied-in-law (quasi-eontractual) promise. (a) opinion ment. The court’s exonerates legislature never will know —when in from derelict school officials amena- statutory obligation— it creates a future bility failure, civil for their whether court will it providing enforce deliberate, statutorily however to include the promise. the critical obligation mandated though Even the court does not view the county budget school district the annual statute created the as consti- (b) impermissibly shifts tutionally infirm, cavalierly it nonetheless ex- responsibility officials. onerates an entire class obligors from enjoins approach upon county court’s officers performance legislatively imposed obli- protecting task con- gation. Today’s pronouncement plainly pro- tinued school districts’ lawlessness official delinquent gen- vides school districts with by waging never-ending litigation escape by destroying erous hatch all avenues recipient’s needed to enforce cost-inclusion of enforcement available them. duty. Because this solution cannot absolute- is no jurisprudential support There for to- timely ly assure effective collection day’s ipse dixit that distorts the school dis- costs, delinquent revaluation un- statutory obligation. Legislative pow- trict’s budgeted, county government will *15 obligations er to create that into the class fall condemned to absorb entire the cost and controversy subject quasi- here not is (a) pass taxpayers then the loss on to the principles. contractual increasing year’s next the assessments for (b) By judicial sheer the by curbing added court tran- revenues services fiat first smogrifies legislatively imposed duty taxpayer. My pay analysis the for the contro- (a) implied-in-law obligation into an and versy’s then settlement would all the reaffirm (b) unbudgeted it invalidates as an This teachings Muskogee, “debt”. place leave in the order, (c) labeling distortion is as a achieved debt district court’s mandamus allow its duty political obey the subdivision to the enforcement resort to school the districts’ legislative explicit (d) act that creates an and strictly against funds and enforce unequivocal obligation pay money for ser- offending penalty school the officials opin- vices received or to received. The provisions of the Ad Tax Valorem Code4 (a) heavy prospective ion’s reach casts a con- obligor whenever the district’s dereliction legislation5 extant stitutional cloud over nonfeasance) (by judicially found to have regime M«.sfco,gee-prescribed codifies the and been inexcusable. (b) needlessly undermines the force of the post-Muskogee validity enactment whose I crippled. facially CONSEQUENCES THE OF TODAY’S pronouncement Today’s concerned more PRONOUNCEMENT pretense taxpayers protecting with the ex- authority stopping Without semblance of from additional levies than with today’s games My jurisprudence, tant constitutional of lawlessness at the courthouse. 3. “Purely prospective” opinion means the 4. See the terms of 68 O.S.1991 note infra controversy. obligation has no effect Petroleum, Harry See Carlile Trust Cotton R. Okl., (1987), 447-448 nn. O.S.Supp. 5. See VII text of 68 Part infra gives sweep purely prospective to a new 2823(C). constitutional rule declared in collateral attack upon Corporation spacing Commission order. (mandamus) (1) hand, lary to action before concerns, on the main the other focus on enactments; protest on him. The then filed a with legislative Districts fidelity to valid two-day recipients hearing, of revenue with- After a lawful interaction Board. 23, 1993, courthouse; enforcing denied, April Board on the Dis- recipients, fairly upheld and even- vi- challenge all these tricts’ amended handedly, imposed by legisla- inspection budget. the duties sual making than on of these ture rather some April the Assessor filed On virtually by present untouchable en- obligors proceeding a “renewed motion” I writing Were for the forcement remedies. compel payment of the Districts’ 1992- court, put stop to I would the courthouse budget. 1993 share of the revaluation games by making expensive them far too trial brief the their June Districts district-obligors play individual school for the pressed for of the Board’s decision. reversal responsible officials involved. (a) trial court Board’s rul- affirmed Offending district officials must be (b) ing commanding granted mandamus obey the accountable for their failure to held their share of visual Districts be, They statute’s mandate. should inspection budget. brought The Districts they today, judicially ignore licensed to appeal from that decision. impunity. their with absolute post-mandamus proceeding In a nisi prius journal moved to settle the en- Districts

II try trial judgment, urging court to THE ANATOMY OF LITIGATION adjudicated include a their statement [Assessor] The Tulsa Assessor may be satisfied resort to the compel sought mandamus to Tulsa court funds.8 The district refused to Independent Districts 5 and School Nos. permissible proce- set out the enforcement respective dure, their boards [Districts] stating that its earlier writ manda- proportionate share their of the Asses- mus in the case.” “resolves all issues inspection budget visual sor’s 1992-93 petition Districts then amended their in er- property program ror, ad valorem tax revaluation post-manda- pressing for review in compliance with the terms of 68 O.S.1991 mus order as well. objected pay- Districts 2823.6 The to the affirmed, Appeals holding The Court of (a) they

ment neither received because had *16 statutory that while the scheme for man- budget inspection notice that the visual had datory ad valorem tax revaluation consti- $525,000 by approximately been increased tutional, order the mandamus does not (b) they opportuni- nor had been afforded an money judgment may constitute that be ty protest the increase the Tulsa to before sinking satisfied funds. from the required by [Board] Excise Board as § At O.S.Supp.1992 2822.7 the March Ill (a) judge hearing the district that stated had not the because the Districts received THE AD STATUTORY VALOREM TAX statutorily county’s mandated notice of the VISUAL INSPECTION/REVALUATION budget, amended he would hold the manda- PROGRAM abeyance until mus action the Districts appear opportunity inspec- the The tax visual had before ad valorem (b) program comprehensive and he would then is a Board entertain tion/revaluation appeal” might regime affecting “administrative statewide all that taxable property county brought from the Board’s as ancil- within each decision State.9 Const., provisions § pertinent 6. 8. For the Okl. For the of 68 O.S.1991 terms of Art 10 and 2823(A), § require § see note 11. 62 O.S.1991 431—which maintenance infra 18 and *17 county budget excise C. The several and thereafter, compre- each the cost of the boards, passing upon budgets by in submitted program inspection hensive real of visual assessors, levy the several shall authorize and by property paid appropriate shall be warrants carry which to amounts will suffice out the those who receive the revenues of countywide inspection program ap- visual as property county mill rates levied on the proved by the Oklahoma Tax Commission un- prescribed by county as this section. The as- Any disputes der Section 2820 of this title. prepare budget compre- sessor shall for the carry to the amount to out the coun- authorized program inspections hensive of real visual tywide inspection program visual shall be re- property county and file such with the county (Emphasis solved excise board." (Em- county budget excise board or board.” added.) added.) phasis § The and to 1993 1994 amendments 2822 have § The 1992 1994 amendments to 2823 have legal no effect on this case. legal effect no on this case. 11; 2823(A), 2823(B) supra pertinent § § 14. 68 O.S.1991 note terms of 68 O.S.1991 Mus- (D) kogee,supra note 1 at are: “B. board or bud- excise get apportion among Muskogee,supra board shall such cost note 1 at 809. duty legislature has cast the Districts commanding performance writ16 of equiv- duty pay to is the functional of revalua- pay proportionate their share to legal analogue of a costs, and the alent commands them to tion the order that undergirds jurisprudence

judgment. Extant sinking represents payment such make appli- way no limits its principle and in lege.20 ex fund Money budgeted expenses.17 solely to cation the settled Because I would neither erase may judgments districts be memory ignore binding precedent, law’s nor only resort to in one satisfied fashion — today that a writ of mandamus I would hold and statute-mandated19 the constitutional18 perfor- calls for the follows that when pay to revaluation costs sinking fund. It hence sinking [f]or be used ... § "... Such funds shall 1451 are: of 12 O.S.1991 16. The terms municipali- judgments against the of may be issued of mandamus “The writ added.) ty (Emphasis ...." any Supreme district court ... to Court or the § pertinent 365.5 terms of 62 O.S.1991 tribunal, corporation, person, board or inferior were: any act compel performance of judgments against any county "Money or other resulting enjoins duty specially from an law office, municipal subdivisions the State Okla- of of station; though may it re- trust or but manner, following paid homa shall be in the judg- its quire an inferior tribunal to exercise may paid [The in no other .... be manner discharge any proceed of of its ment or functions, municipal sink- treasurer] shall ... canvass his judicial it control discretion." cannot ascertaining ing if fund for the of purpose added.) (Emphasis sinking for such munici- there be in his fund § of O.S.1991 1452 are: The terms pality an amount of actual cash over and above may any not be issued in case where "This writ coupons needed to all the amount of cash plain adequate is a there maturing therein with- and bonds matured ordinary of the law. It be issued course sinking replen- in the time such fund will beneficially party on the information such from levies made or to be made for ished approve interested." ... he shall such claim in neither in excess of such such amount as is Okl., 428, Stroud, City 385 P.2d 17. Braine v. actual cash reserve claim nor in excess 631, 18, (1963); necessary coupons Epley, 10 Okl. 64 P. In re and bonds as hereinbe- (1901). State v. District Court fore defined and shall transmit it to the clerk of 19-20 See also added.) Okl., 700, municipality.” (Emphasis County, Mayes such 440 P.2d legal (overruled § no grounds by The 1994 amendment 365.5 has part Palmer v. on other Okl., 589, (1974)); effect this case. Smiley Belford, 527 P.2d § 361 were amended Tulsa, The terms of 62 O.S.1991 Okl. 14 P.2d provide: (1932). "judgment” “The term shall be construed by any the final determination court of mean § pertinent Art. Okl. 18. terms of jurisdiction pro- competent action or Const., are: ceeding rights parties.” to determine the “[Sjchool levy added.) ... ad- (Emphasis districts shall sufficient Okl.Sess.L.1993, (62 O.S.Supp.1993 to be revenue to create a fund Ch. ditional 361). payments parts such determines the used ... A mandamus order may, by rights parties it judgments to an action in which [districts] as such law Braine, 431; Mayes added.) sought. supra note 17 at required pay.” (Emphasis See County, supra note 17 at 708. While litigation, legal amendment has no effect on this provide 19. The terms of 62 O.S.1991 teachings entirely with the it is consistent pertinent part: Muskogee,supra note 1 at 809-810. of each "It shall be the of the officers municipal corporation in the State of Okla- 19; supra Mus 20. 62 O.S.1991 note levy 810; taxes to make a homa law authorized kogee,supra note 1 at Bd. Educ. v. Bd. fund, levy Com'rs, each for a which shall 171 Okl. equal Goerke, [a] ... be sufficient to ... sum ... State v. 191 Okl. (½) original amount of one-third all Primary resort must be had *18 outstanding against municipali- judgements Only upon budgeted their exhaus to the funds. ( n ) ty judg- more of each judgment when one-third a mandamus be enforced tion court's refusal— n unpaid, due and in case less ment remains other sources. The trial (½) post-mandamus proceeding remains than one-third such settle the —to judg- journal entry judgment by detailing applica due then for the entire amount of such remaining (Emphasis yet unpaid procedure ...” not a bar to the ment ble enforcement is added.) Muskogee-authorized collection invocation of § pertinent 435 are: method. terms of 62 O.S.1991 include, statute-imposed and hence approve, manee and the Excise Board to appropriation for the revaluation expense. represents sinking obligation as a fund matter law. This solution would avoid coming grips with the constitutional infir- g

mity opinion. addressed the court’s Impact Muskogee-prescribed

Regime Unnecessarilg Narrowed Today’s Muskogee constriction of the anal Scrapping Muskogee Judicial ysis rests on obligor the view that when an Sinking-Fund Remedy allowed to resort funds for satis faction an unbudgeted liability, The court holds that mandamus can never penalty taxpayers, contrary is levied on obligation be used to create a fund the constitutional “cash” or “pay-as-you-go appropriated without an expense. annual plan.”22 The court’s unsup conclusion is None the cases the court cites this ported by jurisprudence. extant Graves v. spurious doctrine stands the invoked Bd. County23 Cimarron cited ofComm’rs. of proposition21 Today’s pronouncement al- opinion, inapposite. in the That case found (1) lows only mandamus as if funds constitutionally obligation infirm an rested (2) appropriated, have been the Assessor had contract, voluntarily-entered much included the teaching revaluation costs in her annual the same as the court’s City Del 1 n (3) Lodge v. FOP No. budget, These authorities unspent budgeted funds of the plainly inapplicable are both to and dissimilar obligor were available the Districts’ today, the case before the court share, pressed the mandamus claim is deals with an involuntary duty cast which revaluation costs fiscal voluntary law’s command rather than with a sought are recouped to be fiscal con- obligation. Law-imposed contractual obli (i.e., order) year-end payment fusion will gations budgeting stric free from not result. 10, 26, Const.,25 § tures Art. Okl. whose provisions prohibit public being The court’s ill-crafted substitution for set- funds from beyond single year. encumbered An (re- ignores offending tled law officials’ uninterrupted authority unequivocal line of obligor-agencies’) calcitrant statutory duty to ly supports long-recognized exception and to their share of the revalua- duty.26 Today’s opinion statute-cast Today’s approach by wrong- tion costs. errs only departure. marks the ly superimposing upon the statute’s un- (Assessor’s) equivocal obligee’s command the Sinking constitutionally funds are mandat- (a) extra-statutory burden to monitor ed.27 Resort to them must be treated as an (b) budgets, district’s to seek and secure (to exception provisions authorized during the fiscal 10, 2628) § Art. for collection of all law- compel obligor imposed involuntarily order to liabilities that are in- Mullins, opinion 21. For this doctrine the court’s errone- Board Com'rs v. 202 Okl. ously County, 628, 835, cites Deal v. Excise Bd. (1950); Pontotoc City 217 P.2d of Claremore 73, 859, (1937); 179 Okl. 64 P.2d Commission, 223, v. Oklahoma Tax Chaffin 197 Okl. 425, Okmulgee County, Excise Bd. 172 Okl. 299, (1946); Liberty P.2d Nat. Bank v. Coun 480, Davidson, Shannon v. Board, 245, 51, ty Excise 175 Okl. 52 P.2d 293, 1106, (1912). Okl. 125 P. (1935), 114, City Lodge supra cf. Del v. FOP No. note 22. 114, Okl., Lodge 22. Del v. FOP No. 869 P.2d (1994). pertinent 27. For the terms of Art. Okl. (1934). 23. 170 Okl. Const., supra see note 18. Okl., pertinent 28. For the terms of Art. Okl. pertinent For terms Art. Okl. Const., see note 31. infra Const., see note 31. infra *19 (and authority opinion arbitrarily is no The court’s sans curred.29 There legal authority) post-fis- labels the Districts’ today to honor the settled refusal court’s cal-year statutory obligation as doctrine. quasi-contract one in in as- enforceable sumpsit.30 It the reme- reasons because Y dy obligation’s for this breach is to be treat- contract, ed as on the it constitutes a one ANY TEXTUAL OR JURIS- WITHOUT meaning im- “debt” within the of the limit WARRANT, PRUDENTIAL TODAY’S posed by Art. Okl. Const.31 The obligation PRONOUNCEMENT TRANSMOGRI- claim to Assessor’s is errone- subject ously downgraded as FIES A LEGISLATIVELY-IM- to the terms of 361-363, QUASI- require which A O.S.1991 POSED LIABILITY INTO appropriation of funds and an itemization CONTRACT sought of the contractual indebtedness to be question to The narrow be answered here judgment. Today’s to reduced unwarranted legislature, having is whether the created an mischaracterization of the revaluation obli- duty pay relationship explicit to status gation quasi-contractual transforms county-obligor between the and the school existing pay law’s command to the revalua- obligee, power has ex- expense implied-in-law tion into a worthless which, pect obligations its statute-commanded promise unbudgeted, when becomes judicial interposition unenforceable. will be enforced without promise through pay the fiction of a jurispru There is no extant Oklahoma quasi-contract. public-law duty pay support quasi-contractu dence to the court’s obligor-obli- revaluation costs is based on an analysis. theory only al is not harmful gee relationship public- status between two unnecessary but as well. For the enforce By legislative law entities. status the obligations, pre-1600 English ment of com obligor school district is made the and the concept mon law was dominated obligee. duty promise fulfilled,32 its cast rather than of 30. Bullard v. 31. The promise status —not vol. Theodore F.T. Thomas not derive its ment of History debt was (status) Common debt. contractual matters were action in the fourteenth and covenant. James B. supra more, Const., are: the income and revenue become purpose, thereof...." without the assent of three-fifths of the voters "[N]o In the fourteenth Mullins, note 26 at 53. supra p. " ** pertinent between Street, Law ... assumpsit' founded indebted, creditor; to an amount supra school district * either note 26 at Bell, promise obligatory Plucknett, [T]he The Foundations (Emphasis parties (1913). (5th 4 Fed.Cas. note directly terms of —the Debt party." early century it dealt with a ed. 26 at any Ames, 303; forms of action used in force from did century which created a real exceeding, The oldest contractual provided debt, detinue, ... Concise added.) 1956). —before manner, Art (Emphasis —created 842; legal duty Liberty contract shall be allowed to Lectures imply promise was the Legal History for such relationship Nat. or for (1817). short, any year, the debt. On Liability, develop- word or and did account added.) writ simple Clare Bank, Legal duty. Okl. any From Status to supra, vol. the term ‘contract’ meant no more and no less than an Athlone Press promises, coupled with the notion of consider- self. supra Rise and Fall of turn or which were owed relationships, There was also a difference between detinue and were Plucknett at 363. With the debt there was no development Status In The Common Law at 33 tor generally debt. Detinue dealt with at 635. The idea ation, as more like sprung ises. The 1979); Williston, ry (Emphasis question English was the debt itself. A.W.B. owned; Ames, supra at 89. "... did not repay). from the Common of an grant added.) 416-417 Legal debt dealt with property and modification of such as R.H. 59-60. See also applicable 1953); gain acceptance Id. at 365. An action on account Contract) that the debtor Law of Freedom exchange undertaking. (and [MJedieval at 122. “Prior to ... History actionable in debt.” J.H. Treatise A partners. (Oxford University Patrick Selim than breach of Contract hence specific Baker, (University exchange Contract, only "grants,” lawyers under Simpson, gave Plucknett, An Introduction on the Law of (3d until after the chattels, (The a few (1975); Ames, assumpsit or to the credi- relationship Atiyah, 36-37, saw a debt ed. of London of mutual Movement Graveson, not promise." fungibles, types A Histo- ^[1600] Street, prom- 1990). supra Press 40- re- it- *20 duty by one that was either undiluted jurisprud The cast was volun Oklahoma’s extant into, in tarily entered which case it was called ence:35 (or iuris),33 juris by or vinculum one east early quasi-contractual notion of a re- regardless by obligor. act law of covery manifests itself in the common count legis. the latter case it was called vinculum received,36 had and which is a duty the law moved When status and from purely restitutionary claim.37 The Okla- promise by developing principles of mod homa, as English, well as the contract,34 duty ern the earlier notion of sur recovery money paid of under an unenforcea- parallel in vived to continue existence with ble, void, voidable or otherwise promise-based obligations. Duty-based frustrated obli gations, law, quasi-contract.38 in long cognizable implied- at common contract is An con unabrogated by promise tinue to stand statute and supplied in-law will be from one who (Duties Contracts, Imposed promise 32A Law Without force a debt if the defendant had made a (3d 1957); Distinguished) Assent at 88-92 it at ed. the same time or after the debt was Corbin, Baker, Obligations, supra Quasi-Contractual created. 21 Yale note 32 at 389-392. The action, (1912). assumpsit, latter known as L.J. 533-537 n. 17 indebitatus originated early century. in the sixteenth Slade's Case, (K.B.1602), Eng.Rep. allowed in- law, obligation 33. "In the Roman is defined assumpsit debitatus to enforce a debt without i.e., law,' juris, whereby aas vinculum 'a bond of proof subsequent promise pay. of a The “as- party one becomes or is bound to another to do sumpsit" presumed. itself was something according to law." Black’s Law Dic- (5th Ed.1979). tionary, Henry See also Street, (vol. 2), supra Maine, note 32 at 65 observes (1883). Sumner Ancient Law 314-315 It that: (rather promise) is the bond than that creates a legally duty. obligation enforceable "An ais unshakably planted “Our law of contract is bond, legal with which we are bound a neces- upon conceptions two instead one. The idea sity performing according some act to the laws law, duty imposed by of contractual which was Inst, Just., 3, (quoted of our State." conception the first of contract revealed in the Corbin, Quasi-Contractual Obligations, Arthur L. law, eternally common abides. It has not been (1912)). 21 Yale LJ. 80n. As Thomas only supplanted; it has been in a measure ob- 7-8): (supra pgs. Street notes note vol. conception scured the modem the obli- gation promise .... [T]he sole clue to a 'right' It is to be observed that the terms proper understanding quasi-contracts is are, 'duty' They are substantial correlatives. concep- found in the ancient and indestructible fact, only aspects different names for different duty imposed by tion contractual law. A (vinculum legal obligation juris), by of that thing constantly to be borne mind jural which men are held in relations. The student of modern contract law is that deal- 'duly' applied legal term name to the tie ing mysterious implied promise, with the he is standpoint when it is viewed from the really simple in contact with the debt in dis- do; person who is bound to while the term guise. implied promise purely a reme- 'right' is used when the same tie is viewed light dial fiction. Slade’s Case ... sheds a false standpoint person from the entitled to contract, subsequent history on the because performance. gives easily misleading it so rise to the infer- conception ence that the of the debt has been Assumpsit trespass evolved from actions. superseded extinguished by the notion of Baker, Street, supra note 32 at 374—375. See added.) promise.” (Emphasis supra (assumpsit note vol. 3 at 172-173 is an deceit). action on the case in the nature of At Baker, supra note 32 at 410. first, duty was based either law and previous custom or a transaction between the Rosett, Contract Application 37. Arthur parties. Simpson, supra note 32 at 205-207. Law And Its (4th 1988). ed. Eventually duty the source of the evolved into "assumpsit,” which meant that the defendant something, undertook "to do and then did it quasi-contractual obligation 38. The arises "with- Baker, badly damage plaintiff.” to the obligor, out reference to the assent of the supra Simple assumpsit note 32 at 375. became receipt aof benefit the retention of which is nonperformance parol an action for the unjust, requiring obligor to make restitu- I, simple pt. Woodward, contract. Restatement tion.” Frederic C. Restitution, Quasi Law note, (1937). introductory Assumpsit (1913). at 15 general aFor discussion of Contracts initially only nonperformance contracts, available implied-in-law Triple see Shebester Palmer, Insurers, Okl., simple George aon contract. 1 Crown Law Reed, (10th began Hughes The courts then see also 46 F.2d of Restitution Cir.1931). recognize assumpsit quasi-contractual obligation could be used to en- is one promise without kept cannot be must return enforceable *21 faith.39 good (real fictional). This is so because the or statutory liability duty-, in contest here is restitution, examples from the Ünlike promise-based.41 not enough. That is authority support to no extant there is quasi-contract’s implied-in-law promise may supply a must the law day’s notion that only be there is a needed where neither promise statutory upon obligor from a whom cast, unequivocally promise duty pay.42 legal nor a has enactment valid pay.40 This is not an duty explicitly, the I hold that the would hence solemn statu- the When, here, restitution. action for district, tory sought obligation a school explic obligor’s liability directly stands of here, may downgraded law, not by itly imposed promise no need be enforced quasi-contractual a rubric. Simply put, a implied. the statute creates (4) Milford, by legal implied imposed promise fiction of the charter. In town the a District’s the Shebester, State) supra (from at 610 sought recovery expenses inlaw. n. 30. the of pauper. support a state incurred in the of Other Bridwell, holding court’s v. 39. See this (a) private litigation cases relied deal with Burford 216, 245, (1947), P.2d Okl. 185 218-219 199 statutorily recovery of authorized fees applicable the rule is to be that a where said (Harris Christian, (1849) (an 10 Pa. 233 v. alder- realty paid purchaser cannot recover pressed statutorily man’s estate authorized price purchase under on the contract, an unenforceable decedent); (b) by fees for rendered the services repudiated, which the seller has not but (2 450, Wall.) Joliffe, Steamship U.S. Co. v. 69 willing, perform. ready, and able to v. Roussel 457, (1864) (a pilot, 17 L.Ed. 805 whose services Okl., 522, Russell, (1959) 339 P.2d 527-528 by shipowner, were declined a made a claim 957, 55, Wright, v. 204 Okl. 226 P.2d Hawkins prescribed by pilotage statute for one-half the (1951), application declare a 962-963 similar fees; pilot transaction between the and the the principles. quasi-contractual contract) (c) shipowner gave quasi rise to a a (Augner Mayor refund a license fee v. the support and state cases 40. The federal cited in York, 461, App.Div. New 14 26 N.Y.Civ. quasi-contractual analysis inappo- the court’s are 165, (1897) (a Pro.Rep. promise N.Y.S. 803 case. The court v. site to this relies on U.S. P/B implied pro was a rata STCO, (5th share of the Cir.1985), Metropolitan 756 F.2d refund by plaintiff Columbia, 1, paid covering license fee the the v. Dist. Railroad Co. 132 U.S. 19, (1889); period during government the Wyandotte which had abro S.Ct. 33 L.Ed. 231 Co. v. States, 379, license)). gated United 389 U.S. S.Ct. his (1967); v. L.Ed.2d Commonwealth, Inhabitants Milford Here, duty sought by the to be enforced 144 Mass. 10 N.E. statutory obligee against obligor, (1887). performance cases deal These with the third-party performing duty. the defendant's party statutory obligation, of another’s third Today's jurispru- federal and reliance on state legal obligor per- rather than whom from imposing quasi-contractual dence for dimensions They per- was due. formance illustrate that the upon explicit, unequivocal direct and revaluation statutory duly give of another's can formance liability any legal unjust prece- warrant is without or rise to a claim for enrichment. The issue Moreover, pressed party is whether the third dent. could recover courts have no role in federal and, so, legal obligor if shaping general body from the supply would the law common law. STCO, requisite promise. 64, 78, In Tompkins, P/B Erie v. 304 U.S. 58 S.Ct. government sought recovery the federal (1938). 82 L.Ed. 1188 cleaning up discharged oil the costs of from navigable barges into waters the Federal under Mercury Investment Co. v. F.W. Woolworth Act, Water Pollution Control 33 U.S.C. Co., Okl., 523, 529-530, n. 14 duly imposes primary polluter act on the Franks, v. Cameron & Henderson Okl. and, nonperformance, up upon its autho- clean government up and rizes the federal to clean (2) Similarly, Wyandotte, recover its costs. Okl., Copeland, In Anderson P.2d government pressed recovery federal of its court, (1963), quoting Piggee from Act, removal costs under the Rivers and Harbors Mercy Hospital, 199 Okl. imposes 33 U.S.C. on the " (1947), law, implied by states: ‘Contracts or negligently sunk it owner of vessel to remove contracts, properly quasi more or constructive navigable Metropolitan, waters. obligations imposed are a class of which are sought recovery of Columbia costs District regard created law without to the paying party paving assent of incurred in third to do bound, obligor required parties ground they do under work that VI B. Recipients All Ad Valorem Tax Are

UNWARRANTED JUDICIAL EXONERA- Impliedly Included Within TION OF DERELICT SCHOOL DIS- Penalty § 2943 Provisions TRICT OFFICIALS —WHO VIOLATE Because, when the THEIR IN- SOLEMN DUTY TO unbudgeted, the court leaves THE CLUDE REVALUATION OBLI- without effective post- at the IN THE GATION ANNUAL BUD- fiscal-year stage, provide I desire to the as- *22 GET —FROM AMENABILITY TO today analysis sessors with that guidance and CIVIL LIABILITY which will assist them in enforcing penal- ties recalcitrant school district offi- A. cials. Initially, § penalty provisions Liability

Civil Provisions of The may targeted only have county officials.45 Ad Valorem Tax Code statutory When the scheme was later ex- panded by imposition duty of a on ad valo- By stripping county government of all recipients rem tax county other than the (for recovering civil remedies unbudgeted re offices to county reimburse the for their costs) against valuation recalcitrant school cost, share of the noncounty revaluation offi- officials, analysis district the court’s leaves automatically cials aegis came under the legal the state and counties with no choice the statute. Insofar as these local officials but that which was doubtless intended (other than county) those of the are called legislature very to be the last resort —the discharge duties connected with the penalty provisions draconian43 of the Ad Va- regime, revaluation noneompliance their with (68 2943).44 § lorem Tax Code O.S.1991 pertinent statutory clearly commands falls purview § under penalty provi- petition initially The Assessor’s mandamus sions. pressed imposition penalty §

provision. appears She to have abandoned Inasmuch as I would include the school quest when she was later met with the § officials within the ambit of challenge district officials’ to the stat- apply Muskogee analysis solving applicable only ute as and state controversy, the instant permit I would not officers. penalty provisions the statute’s to be invoked justice, completed dictated performed. reason and be en- been or Each themof " subject forced an action ex penalty contractu.' shall also be to a Five Dollars ($5.00) per day day's delay for each for such origin 43. The term “draconian” owes its to Dra- failure; neglect or and it shall be the co, lawgiver, an Athenian who in B.C. would officers, attorney the district as to impose decapitation punishment aas fit for steal- officers, Attorney General as to state ing cabbage. Planning Burton v. Commission proper any pen- institute action to collect such Redding, the Town 209 Conn. 553 A.2d alty; provided, validity any that the assess- levy ment or shall not be affected because of any insufficiency, informality delay or in the (eff. January § 44. The terms 68 O.S.1991 2943 performance any duty upon any imposed 1, 1992) are: official, (Emphasis board or commission." provisions "The of the Ad Valorem Tax Code added.) relating officials, to the duties various legislature the time within penalty provi- which such duties shall he 45.The first enacted the (now performed, hereby declared to be mandato- sions in 1933 codified in 68 O.S.1991 44) ry; official, supra part § and the comprehen- such board note aas of a failure of commission, perform pre- relating or equaliza- duties sive act to the assessment and herein, specified, property scribed within time shall tion of ad valorem taxation. Okl. Sess.L.1933, subject neglect p. them to removal Ch. 13. The office 1961, 1965, duty; they shall receive no remunera- 1981 and 1988 amendments did not of tion, services, compensation salary substantially change for their the 1933 text. The visual performance inspection regime, imposes after the time herein fixed for the the revalua- recipients of such duties and until the same shall have tion of ad valorem tax judicial finding gime shortly after handed except only after a the case was down (or nonfeasance) inex- official dereliction scheme this court.47 Under cusable. force, now when there is an absence of funds, appropriated sinking funds are to be C. impressed charge with a of an Penalty Regardless of Whether adjudicated obligation. per- Ap- Law Provisions or the Common 2823(C) O.S.Supp.1994 § tinent terms of 68 plies to the School District Officials’ provide: liability For Failure to Include Reval- a * * * n @ n 0f a Budgets, Today’s giniáng uation Costs In their ^ case 0f a Wrong- Opinion Leaves School District if, recipient, approving budget, after its Any Liability Absolved of Civil doers governing body recipient notifies the By her abandonment of the issue the as- writing board in that there are no funds seemingly penal- concedes the sessor appropriated the amount of the ty provisions applicable are not to the school fund, billing statement for such provisions *23 districts. these or the Whether such notice shall constitute conclusive evi- govern, should the school dis- common law46 obligation recip- dence financial liability for their trict officials’ dereliction ient as it relates to such fund. duty stands eliminated as an issue board seek court’s cavalier unwarranted exoneration obligation....” (Empha- amount such any responsibility all school districts of added.) sis failing timely to submit the revaluation obli- gation budget. inclusion in the annual opinion trump The court’s would the cited Today’s clearly opinion sets a that will course legislation by an out-of-hand ukase48 of inval- offending enable school district officials to idity passed lively justici- advance duty statute-imposed violate their with utter controversy able over the amended act’s con- impunity. formity Today’s to our fundamental law.

YII pronouncement clearly pruden- violates the by casting tial bar of restraint49 a serious THE PROSPECTIVE REACH OF TO- and unwarranted doubt on the constitutional DAY’S PRONOUNCEMENT CASTS validity post-Muskogee legislation. Con- AN UNWARRANTED CONSTITU- injected stitutional clouds must not be TIONAL CLOUD ON RECENT When, necessity. here, advance of strict POST-MUSKOGEE AMENDMENTS legal sought may relief be afforded IN UTTER DISREGARD THE OF PRUDENTIAL RULE OF grounds, STRICT alternate consideration of fun- NECESSITY challenges inappropriate damental-law un- judiciary’s der self-erected and time-hon- legislature statutory into carried form Muskogee-prescribed “prudential enforcement re- ored bar” of restraint. revenue, house, Okl., 711, (1954) (Halley, came much later law. Oklahoma 265 P.2d 359, Okl.Sess.L.1967, C.J., dissenting). See Ch. 4. See, e.g., v. Board Commis- Hazlett prudential necessity 49.The of strict rule is ad- sioners, 290, 4) (1934). (syl. 168 Okl. 32 P.2d 940 today by hered to all state and federal courts. re Initiative Question Petition No. 347 State No. 2823(C). O.S.Supp.1994 § 47. 68 639, 1019, C.J., (Opala, 813 P.2d edict, concurring); Westinghouse Corp., Smith v. Elec. having "Ukase" is a or "decree Okl., 466, (1987); law, 732 P.2d 467 n. 3 v. emperor force I.N.S. issued the Russian or Chadha, 919, 2764, government.” English Dictionary, U.S. 103 S.Ct. The Oxford 18, (1983); (2d 1989). p. Lynch, L.Ed.2d 317 Ashwander v. Tennessee Val vol. ed. See State v. Okl., V.C.J., ley Authority, (Opala, 796 P.2d 297 U.S. 56 S.Ct. (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring part dissenting part); 80 L.Ed. 688 Ted concur Divine, Okl., (1987); Diehl, Okl., ring). v. 734 P.2d See also v. Schwartz ford Chavis, Okl., (1977); Department American Bank v. Commerce Dablemont v. State Okl., Olinghouse Oling Safety, Public

SIQ VIII

Phyllis Paige BROWN, Appellant, SUMMARY NICHOLSON, Pate, Suzanne Glenda obligation The revaluation is not debt. Spears, Appellees. and Ken explicit law-imposed

It is an command that pay. creates a Its terms are enforce- No. 86855. implied-in-law promise. sans able There is Supreme Court of Oklahoma. statutory jurisprudential no or warrant for transforming mandate into March implied-in-law promise subject that is made 10, 26, to the axe of Art. Okl. Const. To-

day’s Muskogee abandonment of the collec- quasi-contractual

tion method in favor of a impermissibly

solution exonerates school dis- offending

tricts as well their officials of

any duty to tender the revaluation

for inclusion in the district’s annual non-, responsibility

and of for their mis- malperformanee they for which should be civilly

made accountable. opinion’s prospec-

There is no need for the

tive required today reach. All that is tois liability

decide the school districts’ in this prudential

case. The bar of mili- restraint against gratuitously casting

tates a constitu-

tional post-Muskogee legislative cloud on the contemplate payment

enactments which delinquent unbudgeted revaluation costs funds.

I Muskogee’s would reaffirm all of school- liability teachings and make offend-

ing school district officials hable failure

timely to tender the revaluation budget.

for inclusion the annual For their impose

dereliction of that I would

very penalty applies same as that which provisions officials under

§ 2943. funds—see notes 19. infra pertinent O.S.Supp.1992 7. terms of 68 For the (C), 2820(A) 2822(B) provide: § § note The see terms of 68 O.S.1991 infra 3H inspection program.14 must carried share of the visual process recipients and occur at least Because schools are ad out on continuous basis valorem revenue, tax the every years.10 county four Each school districts stand assessor sub- ject explicitly imposed statutory pro- duty. to this adequate provision make must ject county and submit to the excise board— approval special budget to for review and IV —a separate from that be treated EXTANT JURISPRUDENCE PROVIDES regularly prepared.11 The excise then board A FIRM FOUNDATION FOR among apportions recipient the cost enti- TREATING MANDAMUS-BASED ties of affected ad valorem tax revenue.12 PAY DUTY TO AS A SINKING FUND recipients copy are entitled receive a OBLIGATION budget ap- inspection visual pear county before the excise board to make Board Commissioners Mus- concerning comment the costs to be kogee County City Muskogee15 taxed.13 —whose regime statutory duty this parameters It is needlessly narrowed to- imposed recipient entity day’s on each its opinion —teaches county compre- recipients “Each shall conduct assessor various from revenues the mill levied, program including county, hensive for the individual in- visual rates towns, all cities and districts, spection property excluding any of all real his all taxable within sink- .. n respective county. ing recipients assessor Each shall thereaf- such funds of systematic program ter maintain an active and

Notes

[******] inspection visual on continuous basis county D. The assessor shall render a state- inspection shall establish an schedule which jurisdictions ment to each of the within the inspection result will in the individual visual county which receive revenue from an ad valo- property county all taxable real within at (Em- excluding rate rem mill funds." (4) years." once least each four added.) phasis 2821, pertaining § physi- See also 68 O.S.1991 § and 1994 amendments 2823 have inspection part inspection. cal visual legal no effect this case. 2820(A),supra § O.S.1991 note 9. 2822(B) O.S.Supp.1992 § 13. The terms of 68 (eff. O.S.Supp.1992 2822(A) (C) 11. The terms of 68 provide pertinent part: 9, 1992) June are: jurisdiction county Each "B. within a county budgets "Each assessor submitted which receives revenue an ad valorem county budget excise board or copy mill rate shall receive a adequate provision board shall make to effect countywide program inspection visual countywide inspections property visual of real county. jurisdictions Such shall have the during ed.) four-year cycle.” (Emphasis add- opportunity appear before excise county budget provide board or the board to The 1993 and 1994 amendments to 2822 have comments, and documentation information legal no effect on this case. concerning budgets submitted the coun- 2823(A), terms of 68 ver- O.S.1991 ty pursuant assessor to subsection A of this case, applicable provided: sion section. 1, 1992, year beginning July the fiscal “For