First American Bank & Trust Co. v. Oklahoma Industrial Finance Authority

¶ LAVENDER, J., dissents. could particular relief performed and been afforded, had the issues this Court be HARGRAVE, J., disqualified. hypothetical, and there- and abstract become Westinghouse Elec- case was moot. fore the ¶ 17, 720 P.2d at 718. Corp., 1986 OK at

tric injunction, an

If is the case with applied to a writ of mandamus

same governmental a court cannot order since 1997 OK 155 agency to award a contract for services AND AMERICAN BANK TRUST FIRST Application already completed. have been PURCELL, Oklahoma, OF COMPANY Services, Inc., 47 Haw. Terminal Air Plaintiff, banking corporation, (1964). 508-509, 60, 67 ¶8 FINANCE INDUSTRIAL Judge Leamon Freeman OKLAHOMA After AUTHORITY, Appellee/Defendant, legal authority that the Board had no found bids, had voided the contract to solicit new and implementing and restrained the Board County County contract, Treasurer of Oklahoma on the the Board fell back Commissioners O.S.Supp. and Board system pursuant rotation County, Appellants/Defen- 1355.8(G)(2). Oklahoma appellants then dants, in the freely voluntarily participated ro and throughout system, provided

tation services and lawsuit and period involved in this the time Inc., Company, $49,- Meat an B & B Wholesale amount of payment received corporation; States of United they Oklahoma By abandoned 940.33. that conduct America; Chrysler Capital Corporation, contro to the fruits of a contract-based claim Corporation; E.F. Hutton Credit regime versy acquiesced in the defense f/k/a and Inc., Management, Defen- Flow Cash system. the district the rotation Neither dants. grant now the relief court nor this Court can originally the contract as sought to enforce INDUSTRIAL The OKLAHOMA pay the appellants. Such would

bid AUTHORITY, FINANCE already completely appellants services Plaintiff, Party Third fully lawyers and performed by other Sys . Indigent Defense the Oklahoma Statutory bidding procedures serve tem. individual; Larry BEASLER, the benefit or and are not for public interest individual, Beasler, an Louise Rollings Construc of bidders. enrichment Party Defendants. Third Metropolitan Water Au Tulsa tion Inc. v. No. 87070. 95, 745 P.2d 1176. thority, 1987 OK Supreme of Oklahoma. Court opinion of the Court Accordingly, the VACATED, judgment of Appeals is Dec. REVERSED, the trial trial court is April As Corrected the writ it issued to dissolve court is directed stayed moot. subsequently and which HODGES, V.C.J., SUMMERS, WILSON, JJ.,

SIMMS, ALMA OPALA and

concur. WATT, J., C.J., KAUGER, in result.

concur property. agency, acquired the Legisla-

place property, sale O.S.1991, § 2940 to act as ture intended 68 to insure that all valid the mechanism previously assessed valorem real estate prior to OIFA’s or that would become due paid. acquisition are Nor- mally, provides such taxes should be by purchase paid deducting them from the price paid to the seller for remittance County was not done this —which required paid to be to case. In that taxes County purchased under 2940 when OIFA have not been and Legislature intended 2940 to be the substi- remedy for col- tute to sale taxes, appellants, lection'of the Oklahoma County Treasurer and Board Commission- (County) may sue OIFA in a civil action ers they paid. if to recover the taxes are not PARTI. OF REVIEW. STANDARD granted summary 2 The trial court judgment in favor of OIFA and Thus, appellate County. the standard for grant applied to a trial court’s review is that summary judgment which set out in Beller, Carmichael follows: Athough making trial court in a deci- summary judgment sion on whether matters, appropriate considers factual purely legal turns on ultimate decision determinations, party i.e. whether one judgment as a matter of law entitled to disputed no material because there are Therefore, deci- questions. as the factual determinations, purely legal sion involves standard of review of a trial appellate summary judgment is de grant of court’s court, Court], like the trial novo. [This General, Edmondson, Attorney Drew W.A. pleadings examine the and evidentia- will Crittenden, Attorney Assistant and John by parties ry materials submitted General, City, Appellee. Oklahoma genuine if there is a issue determine Crawford, At- Assistant District Gretchen Further, all inferences and material fact. torney, City, Appellants. Oklahoma to be drawn from the eviden- conclusions tiary materials must be viewed LAVENDER, Justice. non-moving light favorable to the most exemption afforded hold the tax We omitted) (citations party, in OKLA found State-owned Id. at 1058. CONST, 10, § have the effect art. 6 did not AND PROCEDURAL PART II. FACTS var extinguishing all Oklahoma BACKGROUND. owing taxes assessed and real estate lorem authority make loans appellee, Okla- has property when 3 OIFA against certain (OIFA), mortgages. by The autho- Authority secure them and Industrial Finance homa CONST, summary rization emanates from art. and bank OKLA. 5 OIFA moved for judgment; August court and is 1991 the trial through 33A vitalized Okla- B Act, partial judgment deciding & B Authority entered homa Industrial Finance loans, on O.S.1991, had defaulted the amounts seq., 851 et as amended. OIFA’s by B B were owed to OIFA bank & in- purpose is to aid and assist Oklahoma’s determined, and the ordered development provide dustrial additional judgment future sold.3 The reserved for employment payrolls the State. County’s claim A consideration for taxes. O.S.1991, § 852. OIFA to take is authorized held, sheriffs sale was which was confirmed by develop- title foreclosure to industrial February court in the trial project ment where the is neces- purchasers at the sheriffs sale were OIFA sary protect a loan made $35,- bought and bank who sell, convey any project transfer and 000.00. A sheriffs deed was to OIFA issued 855(o). O.S.1991, § responsible buyer. a as and bank tenants in common in their Further, to minimize financial and sus- losses mortgage parity percentages undivided —i.e. employment, sale, convey- tain if or transfer 12.5%, 87.5% respectively. interests of and accomplished ance cannot be reasonable with proceeds The sheriffs sale were insufficient promptness, may project OIFA ac- lease a satisfy mortgage against to OIFA’s lien quired through responsible foreclosure to a $35,000.00 property. given A credit was or tenant tenants. Id. against judgment. OIFA’s and bank’s earlier In B 1988 & B Meat Wholesale Com- finally 6 Before trial court decided (B B) $525,000.00 pany, Inc. & was loaned lien(s) concerning County’s all issues tax $75,000.00 from and OIFA from First Ameri- taxes, past-due August claim for in bank Company can and Bank Trust of Purcell quitclaim sold its interest OIFA deed (bank). Partly securing pari- a the loans was $1,000.00. reflecting OIFA bank OIFA ty mortgage real estate in which OIFA had rem, summary judgment then moved in bank, an interest of 87.5% and B 12.5%.1 & essentially asserting upon acquisition, that its brought B on the loans defaulted and bank property exempt became tax and suit, County in which and foreclosure OIFA County ad valorem real exist- estate tax lien were made defendants. OIFA cross-claimed ing against property extinguished. was B B against seeking & and foreclosure Athough recognizing it could not sell State- County, claiming superiority property to past-due owned recover real es- counter/cross-claim, By County its lien. arising property tate taxes while the superior property by asserted lien on the owned, previously privately County cross- delinquent virtue of real valorem estate summary judgment asserting moved for years for the through gave personam it an' in cause might during as liens which attach money judgment well OIFA action for a pendency reply foreclosure suit.2 through all estate taxes County’s counterclaim, bank admitted August filing At the time of 1995. its cross- County’s ad tax summary County valorem real estate liens judgment motion for sub- superior mortgage to its Deputy were lien. mitted an affidavit from a Treasurer actuality, County property by 1.In OIFA made record indicates also claimed a lien on the unpaid development personal an industrial Oklahoma virtue of certain taxes. loan to the business (OCFA), concerning Authority No us in County Finance who in turn issue taxes is before appeal. this to B & OCFA was loaned B bank, original mortgagee, along with mortgage. The OCFA’snote and share in the its August partial judgment, as it relates mortgage assigned B, were The record to OIFA. only judgment regard B to & in rem security taken in B also indicates interests were subject property for the from to the amounts due personal personal & B and certain personal B & B on involved notes. No guarantees repayment. issued, were judgment against apparently obtained to secure B & B was Finally, the record other finan- shows bank had B had bankruptcy because B & filed for and the dealings principals, stay bankruptcy only with B & B cial automatic laws had and/or pertained subject property. are not relevant our decision. been lifted as $12,613.57 sentially County in de- concedes it not sell the involved for Oklahoma taxes, linquent penalties and interest was due as a method to recover the taxes Two, claimed to be due. as we will set out in owing for ad valorem real estate taxes. IV, view, despite infra, Legislature Part it is our The affidavit also reflects that the tax O.S.1991, § intended 68 2940 to act as the delinquency, the was never sold remedy property— tax certificate sale or a tax resale. substitute sale —to validly owing for collection of ad valorem granted judge judgment 7 The trial arising real estate taxes while the rem to OIFA. He held the became private ownership, but remain at exempt all tax when OIFA it and acquisition. the time of With these County ad valorem real estate taxes assessed understood, matters turn our we review owing against pri- while judgment. trial court’s vately extinguished. owned were He also inapplicable prohibited found 2940 was interpreting 10 In an Oklahoma attempting to from collect the taxes provision goal give constitutional our is to OIFA, assigns. its successors or effect to the intent of its framers and the ¶8 County appealed and the Court of State, people adopting Draper it. (COCA), Appeals disagreeing part Civil with 1145. To determine this decision, judge’s of the trial reversed and intent we look to the instrument itself and proceedings. remanded for further provision when the text of a constitutional is previously grant- sought certiorari which we courts, it, unambiguous, construing the in are ed. now vacate COCA memorandum We liberty meaning beyond not at to search for opinion, judgment court reverse the trial the instrument. Id. at 1145-1146. The tax proceedings remand for further consistent exemption property in for State-owned found opinion. with this 10, § provides per art. in OKLA. CONST. 10, § PART III. ART. OKLA. CONST. part property tinent as follows: of this “[A]ll DID NOT EXTINGUISH VALID OKLA- state, municipalities and of counties and of of AD REAL HOMA COUNTY VALOREM exempt ... from taxat this state shall be EITHER ESTATE TAXES PREVIOUSLY ion....”4 THAT OR WOULD HAVE ASSESSED THE THE DUE FOR PERIOD BECOME unambiguous language 11 The PROPERTY WAS PRIVATELY OWNED only granting 6 concerns itself with tax ACQUISITION. PRIOR TO OIFA’S exemption property once the State unnecessary property acquired by the first note it is is State —i.e. We CONST, in provision plainly prospective in nature and decide this case whether OKLA. 10, purport of how to preclude 6 would in all situations does not to reach the issue art. property previously assessed taxes or those sale of as a collection handle State-owned may period time the recovery of ad that be due for the mechanism for valorem ownership prior delinquent property private in real estate taxes at the time of remained acquisition.5 has Nor to the State’s Confusion acquisition. must we decide State lien(s) however, mainly begin point, County’s claimed on arisen on this current status in ex rel. ning in Two with this Court’s decision State involved this ease. Galyon, necessity for Land counsel de- Commissioners reasons Office (1932). One, County 7 P.2d 484 es- 154 Okla. on these matters. cisions 10, 6, exemption property is to the tax once the Although art. has un 5. As 4. OKLA. CONST. State, particulars dergone county municipality, in certain over amendment this owned exemption years, express for tax recognized exemption is uncondi- Court has the Statehood era. has existed since limitation, of the State applies with- tional and without 6,§ LAWS CONST. art. REV. See OKLA. property may put. be out reference to the use (1910). language quoted OKLA.ANN. Mayes, 174 Okla. State ex rel. Tulsa v. (a) currently appears of art. in subsection text § (1935). 51 P.2d Constitution. OKLA. 6 of the Oklahoma recently § 6 was most amended CONST. art. way germane proceeding in to this 1992. not Galyon, 12In this Court held that real fund that shall forever remain inviolate and acquired by sovereign estate that the fund shall never be diminished. capacity thereupon Further, absolved and freed of OKLA. art. CONST. liability further previously for the taxes as portion permanent school fund private sessed ownership while in purpose. diverted for other use or Id.6 county and a treasurer is thereafter without recognized This Court has also the State has legal authority to sell the for such Trustee, duty, manage irrevocable as past-due taxes. 7 Syllabus P.2d at One. the trust estate for the exclusive benefit of Part of Galyon the rationale contained the beneficiaries and full return value from proposition appeared this to be the tax ex disposition property. the use and of the trust emption afforded State-owned con Association, Oklahoma Education Inc. v. 10, § tained in OKLA. CONST. art. Nigh, 235-236. ¶ 13 The in Galyon situation view, Galyon 15 In our should be read Commissioners of the Land Office had loaned recognition allowing as a the sale of land owner from the school acquired by lands Commissioners land trust fund and secured the loan with a course of their pay constitutional duties to mortgage. 7 mortgage P.2d at 485. The taxes, previously assessed would be in pur- foreclosed and the Commissioners protection consistent with the afforded school chased the land at sheriffs sale. Id. The land trust funds in the above-referenced con permanently Commissioners then sued to en- cannot, provisions.7 Galyon stitutional how join treasurer advertising ever, be taken exemp to mean that the tax selling sale the involved tion afforded State-owned found arising taxes while it was still in 10, § OKLA. art. automatically CONST. private ownership. Id. This Court ruled the outstanding cancels all ad valorem real es permanent Commissioners were entitled to a validly tate prior acquisi assessed injunction requested. Id. at 486. OIFA, agency tion a State like as the trial ¶ 14 The Commissioners of the Land Of appears court to have ruled. Nor Ga- fice, constitutionally established State lyon Legislature be read to mean the agency, sale, rental, charge have dis prohibited by the force of 6 from mandat posal management of the school lands ing previously that such assessed taxes are State, public and other lands of the and of required paid to be when a State like proceeds therefrom, the funds and derived acquires property, OIFA real as it has done regulations prescribed by under rules and in this case. Legislature. the OKLA. art. CONST. part charge, As of this the Generally, Legislature Commis the has given responsibility sioners are authority require for the payment of taxes as permanent investment of the against common school privately sessed real estate while owned, and other educational funds. OKLA. but unpaid which remain when the 6(B) (1997 11, § O.S.Supp). CONST. art. acquires property legiti for some constitutionally governmental Strict based purpose. legislative restrictions are mate This placed authority on the use of these funds. The re expressly recognized was in Board strictions include: that the income from the County Commissioners Marshall permanent Shaw, (1947) school fund shall be used for the 199 Okla. 182 P.2d 507 schools, upheld, maintenance of the State’s common where this Court over various Okla principal challenges, shall be deemed a trust homa constitutional pro- a law 11, § 6. OKLA. CONST. art. 5 contains similar Commissioners of the Land Office. 1935 Okla. Sess.Laws, 116-117, 29; on certain other restrictions ly designated funds constitutional p. See now 64 O.S. by for use certain educational insti § 151. In State ex rel. Commissioners of tutions of the State. Passmore, Land 189 Okla. Office (1941) recognized § 121-122 this Court fact, safeguard in order to the school land passed safeguard the school land trust funds, Legislature passed trust itself a statute funds. providing previ- in 1935 for the cancellation of ously by acquired taxes on land assessed by mulgated Legislature purposes the Oklahoma lic becomes matter of by record, reimbursed two counties for taxes lost if the deed thereto was recorded liquidation virtue establishment and 1; however, prior provided, to October prison a State farm. The reimbursed taxes prop- that all taxes assessed included those which were assessed while the erty prior paid to its shall be owned, privately property was but which re- full equal and there be a sum to one- n ) initially mained at the time the State twelfth times the number of months acquired the real estate. Id. at 509. property private that the remained own- court, therefore, 17 The trial erred in ership by of an amount estimated granting judgment OIFA to the effect that county county treasurer wherein the acquired property when OIFA all substantially equal lies to be ad valorem real estate taxes assessed and to the amount of tax which would have owing against privately while payable been or will become due extinguished. owned were year had the real not been O.S.1991, § PART IV. 68 PLAIN- acquired public purposes. IS In estimat- ACQUISI- LY APPLICABLE TO OIFA’S ing the amount of taxes which would have TION OF THIS AND RE- PROPERTY payable been or will become due and QUIRES PAYMENT OF AD VALOREM year the tax had the real not REAL ESTATE TAXES EITHER PREVI- public purposes been THAT OUSLY ASSESSED OR WOULD county treasurer shall use as a basis HAVE THE PERI- BECOME DUE FOR current assessment and the tax rate for THE OD PROPERTY PRIVATELY WAS preceding year, unless the tax for the ACQUISI- OWNED PRIOR TO OIFA’S year by current shall then determined TION. set, in which event he shall use as Although recognising delin basis the new assessment and rate. The quent arising while the public agency acquiring shall previously private ownership cannot now deduct the amount of such taxes from the be collected the normal manner sale of purchase price payable own- the real estate because it is owned county er and remit the same to the trea- State, County Legislature grant asserts the surer in satisfaction of such taxes. The personam ed it an in action the State any county hereby treasurer of (here represented by agency) OIFA —a State upon order authorized of the board of tax money judgment §in 2940 to recover a roll corrections to cancel of record all taxes past-due taxes. The trial court deter such assessed for the inapplicable. § 2940 mined was We dis year acquisition of its when the deed there- provides: agree. Section 2940 prior 1 to was recorded to October and the state, States, Whenever the United aforesaid estimated amount of the tax for town, district, city, county, or a school or pri- the months that the inwas subdivision, any political including, other ownership paid, vate which order shall to, turnpike authority, not limited a but upon application acquiring issued of the be trust, municipal water or dis- conservation authority. trict, district, flood control levee or water- course, the 19 Of fundamental rule of district, way improvement urban renewal statutory is to and construction ascertain authority, public housing authority, or give legislative intent. are also effect We law, authority by or other authorized O.S.1991, § guided by generally 25 1 which federal, acquires title to requires that words used in a statute are to purpose governmental for a between Janu- ordinary be understood in their sense unless year, ary 1 and October of the tax contrary plainly appears. a intention Fur- relieved of ad valorem shall be ther, Legislature clearly where the has ex- year remaining months of the tax for the intent, pressed the use of rules next its additional beginning with the first of the month pub- unnecessary a statute succeeding acquisition date its of construction are Odom, expenditures public purpose). will applied be as written. for a The Fuller Legislature recognized 741 P.2d OK 452-453. has that itself develop- OIFA’s loan funds for industrial ¶20 language §of plain pro- geared public purpose. ment toward a vides, by upon acquisition a State for O.S.1991, then, Clearly § contrary governmental purpose, the real shall estate of inappli- to the trial determination court’s be relieved of future valorem taxation. cability, applies to plainly OIFA’s However, unequivocally the statute also ex- acquisition property. of the involved presses legislative intent that taxes assessed prior acquisition paid to a covered “shall be ¶ 22 Normally, owing taxes due and when essentially that a proportional full” and paid in a timely on real are not (i.e. acquisition) year current share of the delinquent, provi- manner and become that have been or taxes would will become Code, of the sions Ad Tax Valorem O.S. period due of time the property for the re- amended, seq., provide 2801 et as ownership prior mained in to the statutory recovery. detailed for their scheme governmental agency’s acquisition, shall also paid, implementation If the taxes are not provides paid. The statute further offering requires public the Tax Code public agency acquiring .property recoup for sale to the taxes. 68 shall deduct the taxes mandated to be O.S.1991, § seq., amended. 3101 et Un- payable purchase price pri- from the to the Code, potential der the Tax one of the ulti- vate owner and remit them to the mate the collection outcomes of mechanisms shows, treasurer. As far as this record of an taxes is divestment own- or taxes were deducted remitted to the right, land, er’s in the title and interest and a purchased property, when OIFA vesting purchaser tax deed resale partly partly at sheriffs sale from the simple and perfect absolute title in fee bank. Dunlap Mayer, real estate. Court; Syllabus by read ac As we involved 3131(a). quisition O.S.Supp.1997, § by unmistakably OIFA was intend by Legislature ed to fall within ¶23 opinion, § In plainly our 2940 was statute’s ambit because OIFA’s Legislature intended to act as the clearly instrumentality one substitute mechanism for enforcement governmental purpose. for a payment owing of due and ad valorem taxes body corporate OIFA is defined as a State, through in the situation where the one politic, constituting public corporation agencies, acquires property for a gov- governmental instrumentality of the State purpose upon previously ernmental as- O.S.1991, 854(A). Oklahoma. It is or that would sessed are be- expressly empowered, sphere prior acquisition. come due State’s acts, public powers exercise which it words, other intent of 2940 the obvious O.S.1991, Further, the State. remedy act as a substitute acquiring that in there can be no doubt normal, method of collection of ad valorem ease, real in this estate involved OIFA was Code, taxes in the Ad Tax contained Valorem governmental public acquiring it for or ultimately a method lead to which could di- carrying purpose, to wit: out its mandate to property owner’s title to vestment aid Oklahoma’s industrial devel and assist property. Accordingly, real in Enid, opment. Burkhardt v. See § required County to under paid to (economic 45, 771 P.2d 608 devel purchased when OIFA have not public opment legitimate purpose with is paid, County may been sue OIFA civil in art. meaning of OKLA. CONST. paid8 they to if are not public the use of funds action recover them 14 which restricts 855(h). Legislature has OIFA 8. We note the authorized O.S.1991, to sued in all courts. 74 sue and be here, enjoining County presented

and the trial court erred in situation County may sue attempting OIFA in a they to collect such taxes from civil action to collect them if paid. are not OIFA.9 PARTY. CONCLUSION. ¶ 25 The Appeals’ Court Civil memo- Opinion VACATED, randum the trial ¶24 The trial court in granting erred judgment court AND THE REVERSED judgment OIFA a to the effect that when MATTER IS REMANDED THE TRI- TO OIFA all AL COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEED- owing valorem real estate taxes assessed and INGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPIN- privately while owned ION. extinguished. were OKLA. art. CONST. effect, only does not mandate such an but ¶ HODGES, LAVENDER, SIMMS, applies grant exemption to a tax to State- WATT, JJ., HARGRAVE and concur. acquired by owned once it is Further, O.S.1991, § State. 2940 is un KAUGER, C.J., in concurs result. mistakably applicable acquisition to OIFA’s of the real estate involved here. Section WILSON, JJ., 28 OPALA and concur requires that ad real estate valorem part; part. in in dissent previ taxes assessed while the ously private ownership in and such taxes SUMMERS, V.C.J., disqualified. year which would have in become due Justice, OPALA, WILSON, -withwhom period proper for that of time the Justice, joins, dissenting part. ty ownership prior remained acquisition, paid OIFA’s must be in full. Today’s opinion pronounces that the Section 2940 was to act intended as the sub terms of 68 O.S.1991 29401 introduce a stitute mechanism for the normal method of preassessed mechanism for the collection of collection of ad valorem taxes contained in (and ad valorem taxes those that would be- (i.e. the Ad Valorem Tax Code sale of the year come due for the property’s property) State, in the situation where the acquisition) by authorizing acquiring pub- through agencies acquires one of its (a) agency lic withhold these levies from governmental purpose upon for a pre purchase price paid is to be viously assessed taxes are or that (b) seller and then remit the amount withheld prior would acqui become due to the State’s county. procedure to the Because this sition. In that such ad valorem taxes have not followed here came to be (Okla- required by not been acquiring the withheld O.S.1991, 3142, Second, pro- primary 9. OIFA’sreliance pur- on 68 Valorem Tax Code. Code, pose by § support served vision in the Ad Valorem Tax 3142 is to insure that a State mortgage position unavailing. lien could not be in this matter is foreclosed or divested Section any county by making tax sale provides: clear that an ad secondary valorem tax lien is inferior or to a any Whenever lands shall be sold for delin- mortgage Montgomery, lien. See Goode v. article, quent provisions taxes under the of this (1945); 195 Okla. 155 P.2d 228 State ex rel. any mortgage upon which or other lien exists Passmore, Commissioners the Land Office Oklahoma, in favor of the State of or the words, supra. any purchaser In other at Commissioners of the Land Office commission, other or upon mortgage a tax sale which the State holds a having power board or officer subject mortgage lien take would lien of funds, under the loan funds simply the State. Section 3142 does not control upon security, of the state estate control Legislature, the issue of whether the as it has secondary shall be at all such tax times O.S.1991, 2940, may § done in 68 mandate that state, lien of the or the Commissioners commission, delinquent ad valorem must be when Office, Land or of board or acquires governmen- the State for officer. purpose. tal First, apply § 3142 does not here because there § record the is no indication in this involved real 1. For the text of 68 O.S.1991 2940 see infra delinquent was sold for taxes under the Ad note 6. estate staking Authority given or The to be calls for out [OIFA homa Industrial Finance answer 6,§ agency]), permissible that the the reach of Art. Okl. the court holds under provision § provisions liability individual constitution-anchored of 2940 Const.4—the immunity imposed upon that deals for its land. now be OIFA for the delin- with quent county. opinion analysis of that section’s outer revenue due the Based on an bounds, county may my response question the this to the critical declares that recover county’s lien delinquency personal against in a is in the action affirmative —that join aspects in Although OIFA. I some of survives. today’s disposition, I recede from the court’s state-sponsored a subordinate OIFA opinion. lending agency, acquired in its interest

¶2 acting in in Firstly, I the court’s suit while a commer dissent from capacity. for a title that is of 2940. The cial Its demand construction 68 O.S.1991 here, completely of all ad valorem assess critical issue to be settled which is not freed construction, statutory period came into one of deals with the ments OIFA before any immunity clearly support lacks State’s constitutional from ad valo- the chain of title newly-acquired rem its fundamental law. Where the levies that burden Oklahoma’s is, here, Secondly, strongly disagree I that land as it was land. State’s nonsovereign capacity, §in title bur there can be found modicum of comes (or textually delinquent demonstrable otherwise divina- dened with all ad valorem taxes ble) premises legislative gen- previously intent to transmute the assessed (and land-burdening concept up eral due to the time ad valorem those become of of acquiring public agency’s acquisition).5 into in-' levies liability payment.2 their dividual When (a) today 5 I hence hold would agency procedures, invokes the an terms of 2940 were neither invoked nor law) (by involuntary operation of trust arises acquiring public agency revocable (with county acquiring in favor of the (b) OIFA; passed when title to land agency standing involuntary as the trustee county’s preas- tax lien for the full amount of ).3 que and the as a cestui trust This (and sessed ad valorem levies as- for after conclusively pro- record reveals up acqui- sessed tax to the time State’s of of the land in acquiring cess suit sition) entry survived OIFA’s into the chain mechanism was never set motion. With- (c) title; of land is not freed from State’s res, out the actual existence of a 2940 trust (d) liability; burdening because the liability there can be no under that title, lien survived the state of section. county may pursue remedies which the dispositive question valorem 3 The here is collection of levies county’s against private owners also are available whether the lien survives the State’s does, public agency’s entry title. If it this land that came to into the chain of not, burdened; nonsovereign capacity. if there is tax lien. the State in a land is (ad valorem) land, liability tax of see 5.This conclusion is drawn from consistent Okla- 2. For the which, statehood, jurisprudence homa since has cases cited note 8. infra (su- placed a restrictive construction on the 4) pra immunity nonsovereign acquisi- Part I 3. See discussion in infra. tion; passing to the State in its sover- but land eign entirely capacity freed from the lien 10, § pertinent Art. Const. text of validly ad valorem tax assessments made (1992), is: acquisition by the State. ex before its State rel. "(a) provided Galyon, Except as otherwise subsec- Commissioners Land 204, v. 154 Okl. Office section, (b) (1932); syl. of this ... all this see also cases tion P.2d Duluth, state, municipalities supra; Galyon, and of and of counties cited Foster (1913); exempt taxa- this state ... shall be 120 Minn. 140 N.W. Locke, (1923). (Emphasis supplied.) 29 N.M. 219 P. tion. ...” proportionate share of the estimated tax for

I year). the current When the terms of ¶ 6 THE PROVISIONS OF 68 O.S.1991 by 2940 are acquiring agency invoked the § 2940 DO NOT IMPOSE UPON THE money withheld, is involuntary trust ACQUIRING PUBLIC AGENCY IN- (with by operation stands established of law DIVIDUAL LIABILITY THE AD FOR acquiring agency standing the as trustee and TAX VALOREM DUE. IF ITS PRO- trust).7 county the que as cestui On the ARE VISIONS INVOKED AND THE hand, here, if, other crystal- the record is MONEY NEEDED TO THE SATISFY acquiring clear that the public agency set no AD TAX VALOREM INDEED IS purchase price aside the to sat- from WITHHELD, ACQUIRING THE isfy levies, delinquent the ad valorem no PUBLIC AGENCY STANDS VIS-A- liability may individual public attach to the VIS THE COUNTY AS AN INVOLUN- payment owner for delinquency. TARY TRUSTEE WHO LIABLE IS THE conclusion, AMOUNT OF TRUSTEES FOR Contrary to the court’s SETTLED THROUGH COMPLI- textually there is in no demonstrable (or ANCE WITH THE divinable) legislative 2940 PROCE- otherwise intent to DURES. general transmute the land-burdening char- ¶7 acter ad valorem acquiring levies8into an The terms of 68 O.S.1991 of agency’s liability. individual prescribe tax Be- a method for acquiring public the agency liability cause imposable by no is purchase price withhold from the 2940, represents preassessed county the amount that must resort for collection (as delinquent ad valorem very levies well as the procedures same as those avail- 6.The terms of 68 O.S.1991 are: owner and remit the same to the States, state, county “Whenever the United treasurer or a such taxes. satisfaction of town, district, city, county, county school any county or other hereby treasurer of is subdivision, political including, but not limited upon authorized order of the board of tax roll to, trust, turnpike authority, municipal water corrections to cancel all record taxes as- district, district, or conservation flood control against property year sessed such for district, waterway improvement levee or urban acquisition when the deed thereto was record- authority, public housing authority, renewal any prior ed October and the aforesaid esti- law, authority by other authorized state or mated amount of the tax for the months that federal, acquires property title to property private ownership paid, was in is governmental purpose January between 1 and upon application which order shall be issued year, October 1 of the tax such shall acquiring authority.” (Emphasis of the ed.) add- remaining be relieved of ad valorem tax for the year beginning months of the with the first of succeeding acquisi- the month next the date its who, trustee, though 7. One not a consensual public purposes tion for becomes a matter of qua misap- stands nonetheless liable trustee for record, public if the deed thereto was recorded plied fiduciary equity jurispru- funds known in 1; however, prior provided, to October that all involuntary dence as or de son tort trustee. property prior taxes assessed to its Sandpiper Apts., North Ltd. v. American Nat’l paid shall be and there be full Bank, 983, 1984 OK 680 P.2d ( n ) equal a sum to one-twelfth times tort, constructive, maleficio, terms—de son ex in- number of months that the remained voluntary, implied-in-law by oper- trustee or one private ownership of an amount estimated 10; synonyms. ation of law—are all Id. at n. by county county treasurer of the wherein Tulsa, Davis v. National Bank 1960 OK substantially equal the real lies to be 353 P.2d to the amount of tax which would have been or payable year will become due and had obligations 8. Ad valorem assessments are in rem acquired the real not been personam. personal liability and not in No purposes. estimating the amount of taxes upon properly pay cast owner the assess which would have been or will become due ments levied the land. U.S.v. Home Fed. payable year for the tax had the real Tulsa, S. & L. P.2d public purposes not been 325; Henshaw, Allen v. 197 Okl. P.2d treasurer shall use as a basis Duckworth, (1946); McDonald v. current and the tax assessment rate for the (the (1946) ad valo- preceding year, tax unless the for the current set, provides system comprehensive rem tax code year by shall be then determined and taxes on real estate which event he shall use as basis the new Although property). collected the sale of the The.public agency assessment and rate. ac- personal liability quiring for ad valorem taxes is shall deduct the amount of owner, purchase chargeable against price payable such taxes levies 636 II enforce private landowners9 to

able land.10 upon its lien the OIFA BY THE STATE PRESSED THE RULE LAND THE FREE AGENCY’S TO In the context of this transaction 9 AD VALO- LIABILITY FOR FROM § nor was procedure was neither used 2940 THE TIME OF TAX DUE AT REM by ex- it invocable.11 The sale effected IN INVOCABLE IS NOT PURCHASE $35,000 upon judgments tending held a credit THIS CASE original by the bank and OIFA.12 Since A. jointly made The That Is Sub- 10 In The Transaction public agency, entity acting with a Agency Litigation ject This Of at all available procedures § were not 2940 Acting In A For The State Was Not mechanism did the to OIFA. Neither Sovereign Capacity later trans- when the bank become available sovereign capacity, in Acting property, its interest ferred OIFA agencies perform a wide create states monetary consideration for the but no levels. The range of functions at different sum, trust title.13 In transfer of government are not units of subordinate land is ever in existence. OIFA’s res was Rather, they sovereign bodies.14 themselves agency acting individual but'the the state burdened instrumentalities serve as free of delegated authority,15 pursuant delinquency. liability for this purpose is to “aid stated OIFA’s industrial devel- and assist with Oklahoma’s employment opment provide additional (emphasis supplied) within the and payrolls” agency accomplish goal, this To state.16 bonds, proceeds of may sell issue and Develop- placed in an Industrial which are kept in that is to be [Fund] ment Loan Fund treasury. Upon application of an the state agency,17 is au- development OIFA industrial 40, 50, 835, 842, realty. 70 L.Ed.2d continuing upon U.S. 102 S.Ct. lien constitute L., (1982); Kagama, supra v. 118 U.S. Fed S. & at 325. United States Home 379-81, 1109, 1111-12, L.Ed. 228 6 S.Ct. 3105; Dealing v. State ex rel. 9. 68 O.S.1991 (1886). Off., Land Com'rs of overdue, (when valorem tax is 228-29 legislative limited Government 'bodies with 15. against realty lien attach as a levies from, in, or exist subor are “derived functions" redeemed, and, prop make entire fee unless Kagama, sovereign bodies. dination to” state delin erty subject in satisfaction of the to sale supra 6 S.Ct. at 1111— 118 U.S. at quency). Chevrolet, 12; & Gold Inc. see also Benson Com'n, 403 So.2d Louisiana Motor Vehicle courts. 74 and be sued all 10. OIFA sue (La.1981) ("the principle established that is well 855(h). O.S.1991 agency conformity act in administrative must ideally procedure statutory authority, available cannot ex 11. The which it with its Shenefield, purchase ceed"). a cash in which there is situations money context The Parker See in this acquiring public is due from and the New Fed Brown State Action Doctrine Antitrust, to the owner. 51 Antitrust L.J. eralism of (1982) ("[sjubordinate agencies operate [state] acquired at sher- in contest was sovereign power, delegations under of state (87.5%) January OIFA iff's sale on only policy”). follow state can (12.5%) (bank) taking jointly title plaintiff proportional interests. undivided their 74 O.S.1991 852. 16. ownership fee 13. OIFA 100% agency” development is statu- An "industrial August 1995 when property in contest on incorporated "any torily Oklahoma defined its entire in- quitclaimed to OIFA plaintiff bank foundation, agency, organization, association or property. terest in the name, orga- regardless particular whether nonprofit, have as profit which shall nized for Sovereign power either in the federal resides encourage- promotion, primary function the Com- states. See government or in the several industrial, Boulder, development recreation- ment and munity Co. v. Communications (or to) thorized to lend relinquish held the Fund.18 loss its claim ad valo- loans, necessary rem tax protect When to its revenue.21 OIFA may through take title to foreclosure B. sell, development project industrial and then ¶ transfer, convey project or lease that 14 In the Transaction That Is the Sub- ject responsible entity.19 Litigation Matter of this Acting Agency Was Not for the State money Lending 13 for expansion Fiduciary Any as a Constitutional growth manufacturing and of and other in- Property. State-owned enterprises dustrial gov- is not a traditional uniquely 15 This inapposite case is activity. ernmental When the State creates conferring upon the largesse may State the it a money-lending agency it acts in a commer- expect under this court’s school land commis capacity. cial Because OIFA is an inferior jurisprudence. sion rely The State errs in agency primarily established to conduct and ing precedent.22 on that The Commissioners promote activities, certain business it cannot the Land is a constitutionally es of Office claim for itself the same status as that due managerial tablished fiduciary school acting the state when sovereign capaci- its lands.23 that role the State acts in a When, ty.20 here, ownership as of land sovereign capacity.24 OIFA, on the other arises from sovereign hand, activities dehors its is legislatively-created but a role the cannot be to bear the lender.25 In the typi exercise of the State’s forced al, agricultural processing manufacturing sovereign and capacity the state in its is absolved of enterprises, processing taxes); livestock and liability condition- further for ad valorem State ex ing enterprises enterprises process Passmore, and which rel. Commissioners Land of Office 232, mined resources in (1941). Oklahoma.” 74 O.S.1991 189 Okl. 115 P.2d 120 853(d). 6, 32, Const.; 11, 1, 23. Art. §§ Okl. Art. 2 and § 855(g). 18. 74 O.S.1991 5, Okl. Const. See Oklahoma Ed. Inc. v. Assn. 22, 230, 235-36; Nigh, 1982 OK 642 P.2d State 855(o). 19. 74 O.S.1991 ex rel. Commissioners Land v. Arm Office 474, 347, (1947). strong, 199 Okl. 188 P.2d 349 helpful analogy may 20. A be found in the rule of The Commissioners of the Land Office is a con that, explicit legislation common law absent sale, body stitutional that has control of the rent contrary, exemption impact from the of statu- al, disposal management and of school land and tory personal limitations on actions stands con- Nigh, supra of other 235-237; lands of the state. at qua sovereign. fined to the state State ex rel. 518, Haydon, Haskell v. 33 Okl. 126 P. Canute, 90, Schones v. Town 1993 OK 858 232, (1912) 233 . 436, J., (Opala, dissenting); City 149, P.2d 440 Okl. H.T.B., Inc., Imp. Mun. Auth. v. 1988 OK (the 131, Nigh, J., supra primary note 23 at (Opala, 235-236 dissenting). When purpose protection acting sovereign school land trust is the capacity agency no state is support subject of income for the statutory and maintenance of express limitations unless is state); Fair, ly by the common pertinent included schools of the Sears v. the terms enact 239, 134, 138; govern ment. Time bars do and will P.2d Goodin v. the State 364, Office, acting proprietary when it is in a or Commissioners Land 174 Okl. commercial 189, Hale, 645, (1935). capacity. People Ill.App. P.2d See 308, (1943); N.E.2d 310-311 Great Western Ins. Saunders, v.Co. 223 Iowa 274 N.W. 31- 33A, pertinent terms of Art. (1937); Burton, 32 206, Reidsville v. 269 N.C. Const., are: (1967); 152 S.E.2d 151-152 Trustees of Legislature Inc., "The of the State of Oklahoma Bergen Community College Pyfe, v. J.P. 83, Div.1982), hereby legislation (Law creating authorized to enact N.J.Super. 457 A.2d 86-88 Authority a State Industrial Finance ... 'd, N.J.Super. 471 A.2d aff be, denied, hereby, shall [which] authorized to (App.Div.1983), 96 N.J. certification (1984). issue and sell State Industrial Finance Bonds 475 A.2d 598 loaned, proceeds ... [of ... to be which] reloaned, 111(A) (B), Authority only said Part to Okla- See infra. incorporated development homa industrial (whether upon agency's agencies profit non-profit) 22. For the notion that a state in Okla- communities, county’s agencies of title to land the tax lien homa shall first extinguished, Galyon, approved qualified by the State must relies on have been Au- said (real syl. supra acquired by thority, note 5 at 485 estate such loans to be secured either first extinguishment of agencies 19 The seeks cally activity, none of its commercial sovereign capacity.26 in acts in a While valorem levies capacity the State volved commercial OIFA-purchased land order to invest lay sovereign claim to status nor neither property in clear title to the with constitutionally county’s au interfere with a 9,§ contravention of Art. Okl. Const. raising.27 ad valorem revenue thorized an absolute operate provisions of sum, the' State’s exercise of its 16 In barrier constitutional against appropriation authority fiduciary qua constitutional to benefit the of ad valorem revenue State.29 lands a state- the school parallel bears today If the court were to free the land activity. As for sponsored lending role, title tax, acts and takes the former the State validly suit of a assessed ad valorem it sovereign; to and holds land as a activity nonsovereign enrich the state would capacity, as commercial latter functions expense county. at the of the The result enterprise sponsor. clearly offend the 9 mandate. would Ill give judiciary is 20 The bound ¶ 17 JUDICIAL EXTINGUISHMENT OF meaning of the constitution that words TAXES TO AD DUE OR VALOREM popularly accepted notions accords with of AN- A PERIOD BECOME DUE FOR significance.30 The commonly their under- ACQUISI- TO STATE TECEDENT meaning pertinent 9 text31 stood LAND IN A TION OF NONSOVER- judicial impels the conclusion that nullifica- OFFEND EIGN CAPACITY WOULD levy, tion of an ad valorem valid as- when STATE LAW FUNDAMENTAL sessed, acquired in which burdens state land A 9, 10, § Terms Art. Okl. 18 The Of Const.,28 From Re- Prohibit The State ceiving BeneRts From Ad Valorem Tax Revenue 9, 10, land, buildings pertinent Art. Okl. mortgage terms of or second on the Const., properties ...” are: facilities of such industrial * * * Authority cre- Oklahoma Industrial Finance "(a) No ad valorem tax shall be levied (74 by enabling legislation §§ O.S.1991 851 ated any part purposes, for State nor shall body corporate seq.) defining et it as "a levy proceeds upon ad valorem tax constituting public corporation politic, a property in this State be used for State kind of * * *” governmental instrumentality” of the state. purposes. O.S.1991 854. County Muskogee Com’rs v. 29. Board Taron, 282, 115, 797, 1958 OK 26. State Insurance Fund v. Muskogee, P.2d 1991 OK 508, (when government acts in 333 P.2d 805. enjoy capacity, proprietary it does not sover Graham, status); Kan.App.2d eign State v. Recognized 30. constitutional hermeneutics dic- 803, 247, (1988) (governmental 758 P.2d provisions that fundamental-law be inter- tates performed for the are those which are functions conformity ordinary signifi- preted with their general "general public respect i.e., wel with to the English language, they that cance fare”); McAfee,2 Kan. v. State ex rel. Schneider commonly accepted given nontechnical their 274, 281, (1978); App.2d State ex 578 P.2d provisions meaning. must be Fundamental-law Co., 8 Stephan v. Bank and Trust rel. Brotherhood practical manner in order to hon- construed in a 419, (1982); 57, Kan.App.2d 422-23 649 P.2d plainly their drafters. or the manifested intent of Bank, Waukegan 363, People v. State ex rel. Nelson Question Petition No. State In re Initiative (while 158, 237, (1932) 558, 570; 672, 122, Ill. 184 N.E. Ogden No. 1996 OK 2; sovereign, agencies Hunt, 125, 1, are so univer not syl. itself is sally). 1955 OK 286 P.2d 1088 Association, Sharpe v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar 301, 306; Brown, P.2d Wade v. OK 448 526, 528; Campbell P.2d imper- by judicial cancellation fiat would

27. Tax White, OK 856 P.2d agency acting missibly invest an inferior — capacity purely commercial —with 10, § pertinent Okl. text of Art. extinguish legitimate reve- 31. For ad valorem license to Const., supra county. see of a nue sources status, nonsovereign jurisprudence, violates the constitu- court’s legis- no less than the tion’s interdiction of that revenue source’s enactments, lature’s faithfully obey must support use for the of state activities. law’s interdiction fundamental offi- public cial release debts owed to the coun- B. ty the use of ad valorem revenue ¶21 The Provisions of Art. Okl. to benefit the State.35 judiciary pow- Const.,32 Bar Public Officials From erless to order revenue’s seizure and Releasing, Extinguishing Settling Or to confer upon its benefit a subordinate Obligations Any Due Of The There state-sponsored lending agency Enumerated Government Units land in the course of its activity. commercial ¶22 The terms of Art. Const., provide legislature that the shall have IV power anyone’s to release indebtedness to State, county, municipali- or to its targets any ties.33 Section 53 special act 23 A FUNCTIONAL APPROACH TO extinguish liability would one’s for a CREATING AD EXEMPTIONS FROM Extinguishment debt.34 obligation of an im- VALOREM TAX ASSESSMENTS posed by county against the acquired by land ¶24 governmental A immunity official’s OIFA in furtherance of its commercial enter- prise plainly liability would from civil contravene the in- is now allocated on cited a “func- terdiction in the fundamental analysis”.36 law. This tional applying approach In this 5, 53, Const., Canute, 90, 436, § 32. The terms of Art. Okl. are: (Opala, 858 P.2d 440 J., dissenting). "Except charges as to tax and assessment against property remaining delinquent Liability only for taxes is treated as fixed 34. unpaid period long for a of time as or when their assessment has become final. Lovev. longer provided by than that law to authorize Silverthorn, 114, 254, 187 Okl. 257 taking property by the prescription, title to real (1940). Legislature power the shall have no to release extinguish, releasing or toor authorize the or extinguishing, part, See, connection, 5, 46, in whole or in the indebt- § Art. Okl. 35. edness, liabilities, obligations any Const., corpo- Porter, or of jurisprudence: Reynolds v. 1988 individual, State, any ration or 88, this or coun- 816, Although OK 760 P.2d directed to ty municipal corporation or other thereof." 5, 53, legislature, § the terms of Art. Okl. “liabilities”, Delinquent taxes are law Const., 32, 10, 9, supra § note and Art. Okl. directly indirectly releasing extinguishing or Const., 28, supra binding note are no less on the taxes, part, liabilities for in whole or is unconsti- courts. Smith, 217, Thompson tutional. v. 189 Okl. 114 (1941). providing P.2d 922 A statute for refund- - See, e.g., McKnight, Richardson v. U.S. ing penalties accrued on ad valorem taxes was of -,-, 2100, 2109-2110, 117 138 S.Ct. not violative of this section. McAlesterv. of (1997) (private prison guards, L.Ed.2d 540 unlike Jones, Okla., 77, (1937). 181 Okl. 72 P.2d 371 directly government, those who work for the do 1915, 8, Laws Ch. which extended the time for case); enjoy immunity § not from suit in a taxes, payment of certain did not remit or release —— Jones, -, -, Clinton v. U.S. 117 S.Ct. penalties already which had accrued on delin- 1636, 1644, (1997) (in § 137 L.Ed.2d 945 a quent Rogers taxes in of violation this section. v. immunity damages action there is no absolute Mann, Okla., 648, (1916). 53 Okl. 157 P. 331 conduct”); arising Buckley from "unofficial v. Fitzsimmons, 259, 2606, 509 U.S. 113 S.Ct. 5, 53, Const., provisions of Art. Okl. (1993) (there L.Ed.2d 209 is no absolute immuni- 32, supra stamp ramp were intended to out ty prosecutor's conspiracy for a to manufacture pernicious practice by ant and some lawmakers grand false evidence that was later introduced at sponsoring political of bills to exonerate their trial, jury proceedings prosecu and at or for a liability Coving cronies of for a debt. See press); tor's out-of-court Davidson, 339, statements to the Burns Bridge (Ky.1907); ton 102 S.W. Reed, 484-486, Estate, 500 U.S. 111 S.Ct. n re 126 Cal. 58 P. I Stanford's 1938-1939, (1991) Williams, (prosecutors (1899), L.Ed.2d identified in R.L. The immunity par have absolute for their actions Enabling Constitution Act of of (1912), ticipating probable-cause hearing ain but not in as a material source Oklahoma Annotated White, giving police); for the Convention’s text advice to the Forrester v. Constitutional of Art. 219, 224, 538, 542, § 53. See also State ex rel. Schones v. Town 484 U.S. 108 S.Ct. of relationship involuntary paid), trust of an court must look the “nature time, In of invol- created. the absence performed at critical stands

functions” trust, nothing in untary there is not of the defendant.37 I would to the status transmuting intent analysis legislative show today to deter- adopt afunctional acquiring acting in a burdens into the if the land’s for this case mine liability. agency’s payment individual For acquiring land capacity when sovereign liability may ad valorem levies no be im- ad valorem assess- acquiring public agency on the posed dehors sought be canceled.38 Mea- now ment is involuntary parameters of a propose, I trust. by gauge the State’s sured county’s validly Because the ad valorem lien sur- assessed quest for cancellation title, entry OIFA’s into the chain of pass Its vived tax constitutional muster. cannot ad valorem land cannot be connection to purchase land bears itself freed short, levy delinquency. lien of that is en- sovereign power. exercise qua public title- through prism forceable viewed OIFA — functional by the remedies as those avail- same analysis, land in contest here State’s holder — against private sovereign able landowners. acquired capacity. not not title 26 Because the State did take SUMMARY sovereign acquired rather as a but capacity, in Art. the interdictions Ad are a bur- commercial valorem assessments and in Art. Okl. obligation rem Const.39 den on the land as an in (in judicial by a personam) stand rather than the individual Const.40 would offended (a) freeing the land liability proce- decree of a landowner. When state-sponsored public money lender from 68 2940 are invoked dures of O.S.1991 (and money delinquent levies hen that secures ad valorem acquiring public (b) conferring purchase price he a benefit on the State withheld to from Briscoe, 36, 342, (1988) (a supra at judge note 460 U.S. 103 555 is not entitled 37. L.Ed.2d 1119; Forrester, 36, immunity supra act of absolute dismissing for "administrative” note 484 U.S. S.Ct. at Malley Briggs, employee); 229, ("it v. nature [is] at 108 S.Ct. at 545 of 1096-1097, 342-343, 1092, 335, 106 S.Ct. U.S. identity performed, not the the actor of function who (a (1986) police officer is not L.Ed.2d 271 it, immunity performed our that informfs] immunity false entitled to absolute statements added); analysis") (emphasis Cleavinger, supra application); Cleavinger v. a made in warrant Saxner, 36, 201, ([ab- at 496 note 474 U.S. at S.Ct. 193, 201, 496, 500, 88 S.Ct. U.S. immunity not rank or title or solute "flows from (1985) (there is no immuni- L.Ed.2d 507 ty absolute Government;' ... but from ‘location within the disciplinary prison who board members responsibilities the nature of the official”), of individual adjudicate procedural safe- free from various Butz, 36, supra quoting note 438 U.S. counsel, guards, including, right cross- 511, S.Ct. at at 2913. examination, transcript, judicial re- a and direct LaHue, view); Briscoe v. 460 U.S. approach 1108, 1119, (1983) (all is thus far limited to 38. Functional wit- 75 L.Ed.2d 96 S.Ct. nesses, employees carrying give perjured governmental out the various including testi- those who analysis mony, absolutely employer. suit un- are immune from civil their The has functions for 1983); Fitzgerald, v. 457 U.S. yet der Harlow individuals who not been extended (1982) 810, 102 S.Ct. 73 L.Ed.2d 396 profit government per tasks to undertake for discretionary (government performing Richardson, officials See, e.g., a formed under contract. liability for generally are shielded functions —36, -, supra at at note U.S. S.Ct. damages does not conduct civil insofar their (the the func Court refused to extend 2107-08 statutory clearly or constitu- established violate approach pri tional-analysis employees of person rights would which reasonable tional governmental enterprise performing vate tions). func Economou, known); 438 U.S. have Butt 2913-2914, 511-513, 57 L.Ed.2d 98 S.Ct. (federal (1978) not officials are liable 10, 9,§ pertinent of Art. Okl. For the terms judgment, whether the mistake mistakes in mere Const., supra note 28. see Pachtman, law); Imbler is one of fact or one 984, 990-993, 409, 420-425, 96 S.Ct. 424 U.S. (1976) (state prosecutors pertinent abso- have terms of Art. 40. For the L.Ed.2d pursuit Const., immunity the initiation supra lute see including presentation of prosecution, criminal trial). case at state’s canceling county’s legitimate claim to an

ad valorem revenue source.

¶ 27 The State’s interest in the ini- land

tially acquired jointly private entity with a

(through nonsovereign money-lending agency) subject to the coun- inferior

ty’s preassessed lien claim for all ad valorem' (and levies portion up to for afterassessed

the time acquisition). the State’s county’s entry lien survives the State’s into

the chain of title. OIFA’s demand that its

title to the land in recognized suit be as an

asset sovereign capac- the State’s

ity prius must fail. The nisi court should on

remand declare the ad valorem validly impressed

levies as a lien but pronounce

should the State’s land free from

that burden which period be due for the

beginning entry with OIFA’s into the chain property’s title as the sole owner.41

1997 OK 160 Wagnon,

Charles WAGNON Loralee wife, Plaintiffs-Appellees-

husband and

Cross-Appellants, FARM

STATE FIRE AND CASUALTY

COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant-

Cross-Appellee.

No. 89362.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Dec. April

As Corrected Const., 4; passed supra 41. Once the had to the State in force of Art. county's any capacity, power to bur- Galyon, supra note 5 at 485. further den it with ad valorem levies came to an end

Case Details

Case Name: First American Bank & Trust Co. v. Oklahoma Industrial Finance Authority

Court Name: Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Date Published: Apr 3, 1998

Citation: 951 P.2d 625

Docket Number: 87070

Court Abbreviation: Okla.