Hansen v. Kootenai County Board of County Commissioners

n “* * * creation of order come papers have

lien, the must HANSEN, Joseph on behalf of himself G. taxpayers attor- all other possession of the and the actual into Kootenai, Idaho, State of Plaintiffs-Re into his come ney, have so but must spondents, an attor- possession as in his character attorney] has he law. Thus ney at [the KOOTENAI COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY papers he receives no lien on NERS, acting by and C OMMISSIO * * * * * * or trus- mortgagee Cope, through Henry Ralph Meyer, J. W. corporation].” of a manager tee [or Adams, and Don the Coeur d’Alene 2267, pp. 1841- Agency on Mechem Inc., corporation, an Idaho 1842; v. Findla- T. Thomson See also Shelhamer, Jr., MacDonald, Lloyd Donald J. Co., Wiegele, S. 109 Tex. and Kenneth ter Hardware Ruland J. Gill officers, Defendants-Appellants. supplied). (Emphasis W. 831 No. 10458. Lien the Notice of Claim of In this case sum to differentiate between fails Supreme of Idaho. Court by capacity an his claimed Harrison June 1970. manager. attorney capacity as and his July Rehearing Denied 1970. attempted “at- to use the Since Harrison torney’s purposes contemplat- lien” e., recovery compen- device, by

ed i. managerial unrelated

sation for services by him, performed legal services attorney’s created. lien was ever

valid claims made vague statements and an constitute are insufficient

Harrison

attorney’s possessory retaining lien.

Furthermore, appellant, C. William

Harrison, on attempted to claim lien obviously possession not in his attorney-client relationship an

virtue Inc., Mines, Nancy only be- Lee but attorney general he

cause Metals, Inc., Equity

manager possession

had the actual the books Mines, Nancy Lee Inc.

records Mechem, requirement

second set forth

viz., “they pos- must have so come into his attorney at

session in his character as an

law” is satisfied the factual situa-

tion in the case at bar. respon-

Judgment affirmed. Costs

dent. McOUADE,

McFADDEN, J., and C.

.SHEPARD, JJ., SPEAR, concur. particular se- suit documents, money, in a him services recovery in such the attor- cured which comes into hands of considerations, equitable suit, ney general professionally, is based bal- until a ordinary professional liens differs services ance due him for charging possession paid.” not essential Attorney Client § 7 C..T.S. Attorney and Client lien.” O.J.S. 210. equitable charging “A lien is

n attorney due have fees and costs Gary Haman, M. Atty., Pros. Kootenai County, d’Alene, Coeur appellant Koo- County tenai County Board of Commis- sioners. E. L. Miller Ingalls, W. James d’Alene,

Coeur appellants Coeur Club, Inc., Turf d’Alene and its officers. Ray Powell, Cox and Frank Coeur J. d’Alene, respondents. McFADDEN, Chief Justice. appeal This is from the court determining district that a lease of July 1968 is void. lease involved appellant executed board of County of Kootenai by appellant Club, d’Alene Coeur Turf lease, Inc. Prior to the execution of this another lease had executed been proceedings parties, previous and in in this action the court held the This court first lease to be null and void. previously subsidiary considered a has also litigation. this Coeur d’Alene issue in Cogswell, Inc. v. 461 P.2d 107 years number for a prior litigation owned certain adja- property north of d’Alene real Coeur This, Highway cent to east No. property generally is to as to Koo- referred County Fairgrounds. subsec- tenai Horse- quent to enactment the Idaho Act, I.C., the- Ch. 25 of Title Racing commissioners, provide in order to racing, arranged for construction for horse of a track and certain barns on race extended the- already ther grandstand north of a end work, site and did expending During county expended about $32,000 from building building payment from the fair fund fund1 for improvements. for these premiums for insurance cov erage buildings on all fairgrounds on the county In 1966 the then leased the June property, including the leased to track, race the barns and grandstand the the Turf and extended a water line Racing the North Idaho for Association into the barn area leased to the Turf Club. purpose the conducting pari-mutuel expenditures, Other than these all horseracing specified days. on certain The spent county fairgrounds spent on the was relationship group between this and the on areas not leased to the Turf Club. county apparently unsatisfactory was and During 1967 the Turf Club made exten- parties agreement terminated the improvements sive to the owing $1,200 association still about to them. The record shows that the Turf county. expended $137,000 Club about on the im- appellant In 1967 the Coeur d’Alene provements. county appraise- The had an Turf (hereinafter Club referred to as ei- improvements, ment made of the and the appellant ther the or the Turf was Club) appraisement indicated the of these value incorporated, and on March it en- improvements $109,782, to be which was tered year into a written five lease with placed the valuation improvements on the County, leasing portion court in findings district fact. fairgrounds property which included During paid for Turf Club also racetrack, barns, grandstand, certain operating expenses various of the race- parking area, grounds and related neces- track, lights water, including and sary ingress for egress. The Turf liability operation carried on agreed pay Club $1,200 which was owing county still prior from the making improvements under the agreed pay and also per rent cent one county, terms of the lease from the gross wager- amount on all handled agreement local Turf Club had an awith ing up $20,000 per to a maximum rental of contractor, put pub- but it was not out year. provided The lease also any evi- lic bid. The record is devoid of county give would the Turf Club credit by a licensed dence that the work was done against payments any perma- its rental The trial court works contractor. property nent made to the by found that the entire construction was con- up the Turf Club to a maximum of $100,000. paid by tracted and the Turf Club. County Building erty county

1. The Fair Fund is a fund the board of moneys purposes pursuant into which tax levied on assessed for fair had “set aside property county provisions 31-822,” provisions to the of section but deposited of I.C. 31-822 is § and dis Exhibit 1 shows that out of all of the separate county property generally bursed. This fund is from the owned pursu Fairgrounds, County fund that handles tax levies made known as Kootenai 22-206, (a ant to I.C. which levies are the southwest tract about budget based on the submitted 940 feet north and south about 635 county west) property fair board. fair feet was the east separate entity primarily purpose board is a from the board used for of con- ducting commissioners. I.C. 22-201 fairs. testi- Numerous witnesses seq. provides: property, et 22-204 fied to the fact [county (a map “It shall take board] was red on Exhibit 1 outlined manage charge county fairgrounds) prop- of and all such was county may acquired erty purposes. prop- as the have or set used for fair This purposes pursuant erty aside for fair provisions was excluded from the terms of appellant of section 31-S22.” (Exhibit 10). In the instant case no resolution prop- submitted to court as to what 7, 1967, August Joseph day

On next G. and Turf Club Hansen, a entered taxpayer citizen of and a agreement into a new lease cover County, ing of Kootenai in his property.2 own behalf The term of the taxpayers behalf of all other July Kooten- was from through Au County, gust 30, ai instituted action in dis- the lessee challenging (Turf trict court the legality possesson Club) should have 1967 lease between Kootenai of conducting Following racing Turf Club. pari-mutuel operations. motions each party summary judgment, permit reserved the a vet July court in granted summary judg- erans organization parking to conduct all Hansen, respondent ment ruling to provided the that the facilities. was lessee lease was in of violation Idaho Const. Art. to possession May have of the barns from 4, 8 and year. 4 Art. 12 null 1 through August and was thus of each 30 appeal and void. No taken from this also reserved the to allow oth judgment. er groups long to the use so 1968, the use interfere July 17, did not with the lessee’s

On following the district agreed use. The lessee to maintain the ruling, court’s the board of commis- property repairs, and and make the adopted sioners the resolution: following specified or that no modification “BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED change facility be could made with the Board of Commissioners of Kootenai approval by county engi out written County, Idaho, regular session, in neer; improvements all and additions property known as the Kootenai part property which of the real re become County grounds, fair located on U. S. vert to on termination of #95, Highway approxi- consisting of lease; and that if the sustained ad acres, mately less, more or and situ- insurance, lessee expense ditional of North, ate in Township Section expense. The was to such additional pay Range W.B.M., County, Kootenai Ida- lease also ho, be, hereby and the property said necessary declared or “Nothing interpreted shall be herein for, and excepting needed place any financial burden construed to of, (1) exclusive one month each calen- the Lessor due to use liability on September year, through dar to-wit: 1st thereof the Lessee.” 30th, September Koo- during which the for the lease Insofar as consideration for, County prepared tenai fair is con- concerned, provided: days, approximately ducted three “WHEREAS, has, prior to disbanded, the Lessee and all ac- during and hereof, improve- made valuable date conjunction with, neces- tivities and agreed of, said ments to the operation sary and success improve- $109,782.00, County value of fair Kootenai shall conducted County approved have been County through its ments Kootenai paid discharged Engineer and has duly elected, qualified Board acting Racing obligation of the North Idaho Commissioners, cooperation amount to the Lessor Association assistance ac- $1,200.00, and said sum been Fair Board.” feet; W.B.M.; Twp. thence North thence 2. “The of Section SW % fence; South W.B.M., thence Range 4, East feet to the East North LESS feet; along thence East 27 thereof; fence 337 said Less 800 feet the South feet; feet; (road right-of-way), 60S thence West thence South feet thereof beginning.” point prop- feet further LESS the of said erty follows: described as Beginning SW corner of SW % Range Twp. North, Section

(559 cepted payment in advance of all rental exhibitions, fairs or to care for and main- due or to become due under this same, tain the regulate the use thereof and that said and have do and, in discretion, their let, demise or substantially improved the said lease the same to the State Idaho or directly Lessor, and ‡ benefitted the department agriculture [sic] such *% or exhibition purposes upon such terms and conditions During such expend 1968 the did not consideration as their shall improve to maintain or promote best holding such property, pre- than pay (Emphasis exhibitions." added.) miums fire building insurance on the fairs do certain grading and other road prohibits the lease of fairgrounds prop- work on proper- roads to access the entire erty anybody, corporate, individual or ty. other than “to the state of Idaho or the de- partment agriculture”. By Respondent supplemental complaint filed argues that these action, provisions two same again chal- concern the subject lenged legality hence of the second An lease. specific (I.C. 31-822) controlling answer was filed and a over trial of the issues general (I.C. 31-836). was held State before the court. In its memo- v. Rod- § erick, findings randum decision (treated as of It conclusion, is our however, fact and conclusions of these law I.R.C.P. two statutory provisions judgment, do not 52(a)) the trial court held deal with subject. the same quoted provi- first second lease as a vio- unconstitutional sion authority deals with the lation of Idaho Const. Art. 8 4 and Art. of the board § county of county 4. The Turf and Kootenai commissioners to § property regardless separately appealed of the each from the of the lease or use to holding county be made of the judgment prop- the lease to be null and erty. The quoted provision latter void. deals authority of county the board of discussing principal of Before issue site, commissioners to grounds lease “a or appeal, i.e. whether this lease viola- parks on which hold fairs or ex- pre- provisions, tive of the constitutional hibitions” to the state of Idaho or the de- statutory liminary au- concerning issue partment agriculture of such ‘‘for thority county of the board of commission- or purposes.” exhibition (Emphasis disposed ers to enter such a lease should be added.) of. 31-836, Both of provisions these Appellants contend that I.C. § are referred to in I.C. part, 31-801 which provides pro § : vides law, “Except provided otherwise as may the board of commissioners “The boards of any property belonging to respective in their ju- counties shall have exceeding five for a term power, risdiction and under such limita- years may at such be deter- rental tions and prescribed restrictions as are upon by mined law, unanimous vote of in the following sec- * * such board *.” tions, 31-836, numbered 31-802 to inclu- sive.” grant is a legislative authority of board to execute a lease such as is before It is our conclusion that these two statuto- respon- court. On the other hand ry provisions respective relied on urges dent 31-822, pro- that I.C. § parties complement other, each I.C. 31- § part,

vides in 836 generally authorizing the boards of site, purchase “To contract county prop- commissioners to lease

grounds parks or on erty, which to hold authorizing I.C. 31-822 § employment statute was to county commissioners increase board economy. or stabilize the fairground property fairs ex- Under the factual case, best situation judgment Village Moyie in their shall hibitions “as Springs, pursuant statute, promote holding of such fairs enacted an providing coun- ordinance authority If the issuance reve- exhibitions.” type acquisition nue ty lease this bonds for the commissioners to of a site and solely leasing it plant construction of an industrial were limited to and au- thority department agriculture, to enter a lease of state or into nature property of this with the defendant Aurora would mean that Manufacturing many Company. questioned months When Aurora would lie dormant leg- constitutionality year. arrangement to believe that the It is difficult complete is the arrangement, result. refused to islature intended village 31-822 for a declarato- court’s determination instituted action § ry com- prohibit the board of adjudicating does not constitution- entering ality this lease. missioners from into statute and ordinance. This court held that the statute and ordinance case The central issue unconstitutional as violations of Art. violated Art. 8 whether the lease § 8 4 and 12 4 of the Consti- Art. Ar- 12 4 the Idaho Constitution. Art. tution, stating provides ticle 8 § prime pur- “It is obvious one town, county, city, township, board “No poses having necessary bonds is- district, education, or school municipali- sued the name of a lend, subdivision, pledge the shall ty readily is to make salable them more directly or indi- credit or faith thereof Thus, the credit of the market. to, manner, rectly, or in aid of aid of the municipality is extended in corpora- individual, any or association project, regardless of the limitations tion, any any purpose for or for amount purchaser. placed upon remedy any whatever, responsible or become for * * * to us ‘It seems clear liability debt, individ- contract or of city in bonds are issued revenue or ual, corporation out association a marketabili- give its name them own of this state.” otherwise ty would and value which provides 4 12 and Art. * * * loan of its possess. not town, county, city, or other munici- “No city a benefit bring about name a pal corporation, by its citizens or vote of though general project, private to a even otherwise, a stockhold- shall ever become exist, nothing is short liability does not corpora- any joint company, er in stock ” Idaho at of credit.’ 82 a loan of its whatever, raise tion or association 345-346, at 772-773. 353 P.2d for, or loan its or make donation out that ex- court also pointed This to, of, any company credit or in aid such * for benefit penditures primarily * or association any benefit and that private concern of a respondent, and the district court merely inciden- was accruing holding opinion the lease unconstitu- tal. tional, rely heavily upon this court’s deci- Moyie Village of Village Moyie Springs, sion Idaho v. It is our of Manufacturing Co., Aurora Manufacturing Springs, Aurora Idaho v. 82 Co., the case distinguishable supra, That case involved from fact that lies in the an cities to at distinction Idaho statute which authorized bar. The acquisi- city its own financed with issue revenue finance in that case the bonds to was acquisition land which buildings tion funds the of land and construction of village for admittedly private to be used which were to be or sold to not leased rather was at the out- enterprise. purpose public purposes, of but The avowed private set intended to busi- night be leased district for baseball. school dis- present case, In the ness. other paid wages spe- trict for half of the aof hand, fairgrounds are utilized paid cial the field for caretaker for the of conduct- upkeep miscellaneous and water ing and a thereof premises. The school then private only leased to a professional organi- concern not when a the field to baseball readily needed for purposes. of a zation in consideration share of apparent Village Moyie that the Springs validity lease gate receipts. The of this had no the land use and industrial site challenged same constitu- it acquired court, than to lease Au- provisions raised here. This tional Manufacturing Company, rora upheld whereas however, rejected argument and case does stating that the lease fairgrounds have a use rule that is the almost universal “It leases them when needed for leasing parks school public purposes. purposes inconsist- private school, the conduct ent with This recog distinction has been proper- use such unconstitutional jurisdictions. nized in cases from other 114, P.2d ty.” 61 Idaho at p. Annot. 518 at it is stated A.L.R. distinguish reason to between see no We “ * * * generally, provision corporation aof private to a the lease Constitution prohibiting municipalities entity and by public field baseball owned lending pri- their credit in aid of pri- county fairgrounds to a the lease enterprises vate is not violated a sale case, long as so In either vate concern. the municipality prop- of its public’s with does not conflict erty [citing cases].” is no constitu- property, Clarey City The same v. dealing annotation violation. tional ; 166A. Philadelphia, circumstances which will such a 311 Pa. bring prohibition City within the of Frankfort constitu- Councilmen Board of Pattie, p. provision Ky. tional states at 12 S.W.2d v. Fla. Bailey City Tampa, 92 (1928); municipality “It has been held that a (1926). 111 So. 119 have, ordinarily, power does not the Independent argues that Hansen v. School improvement construct with the distinguishable from supra, is Dist. No. selling purpose avowed declared of money there the in that present case private persons.” dona- develop field came from used to Moyie Village our is of This distinction private tions from citizens. Manufacturing Springs, Aurora Idaho v. however, merit, is because once without Co., category supra, falls into this latter property donated to present whereas the case falls under the district, school course school of became municipality may general rule that lease a of that property hence a private to a concern when public a as much lease of property was the public’s does not conflict with use fairgrounds. property as a lease of property. Mc- or need for See 10 28.42, Quillin, Municipal Corporations, p. expenditures As forthe ' ed.). (3d in premiums fire funds Turf leased to the surance on our It is conclusion Club, convincingly argued that it cannot be reasoning set out case is controlled expenditure funds is an No. Independent Hansen v. School Dist. a rever private benefit. The In P.2d expensive rather sionary interest groups raised civic that case citizens and it is insurance and property covered school equip a funds to field owned clearly general public to the to insure rule that a municipality benefit can private certainly lease its interest. The insurance a business public primary purposes has when not needed for benefit to a lessee who supported by convincing property. a short term interest in rationale:- There expen is no in requiring property is also an The water line extension primary to the needed for diture which is of benefit use lie idle when leased, public. Although relieving taxpay- could be the Turf Club was bene thus ers upkeep of the cost of fited the extension of the line to maintenance and barns, on the testimony in the This idea ex- leased there is was well pressed by provides Supreme Pennsyl- record that the extension now ad Court of Clarey City Philadelphia, vania in equate protection fire su- water from pra, city Philadelphia protec whereas there was no such before Also, promoters to the leased its convention hall to tion. the water line extension professional wrestling. boxing and barn conceived and planned was before lease was as not to interfere with Turf and was ex so drawn building. partly upholding tended at least with the idea mind contemplated the court stated connecting of later it with a enti school water installation which would hall, “Unquestionably this built with part tle the to a refund of upon property funds to- dedicated proposal of installation under a cost public purposes, must be to be de- held Finally, utility company. although the voted to But can no- use. there be road on access roads benefited work why, hall sound reason when the is not roads which the work was on city required purposes, general fairgrounds access to the may by private per- permit its use pub ly primarily to the of benefit very building sons. From its nature as during the grounds lic who would use large groups designed to accommodate fair. people, possibly be in de- the hall cannot public gatherings for more mand for on numerous occa- This court has said time, than a small of Idaho that to constitute a violation sions idle, necessarily frequently yet must be 4, “it is Art. 12 4 and Art. Const. cost with little diminution imposition lia- that there be an essential objection, be no maintenance. There can indirectly, political directly on the bility, city’s return from receiving respon- body. or faith of Unless the credit upon, by private persons use of the hall is no obligated [public body] dent when it would otherwise occasions this, Hansen v. Inde- constitutional inhibition.” say, the facts of idle. To 1, supra. See pendent case, private Dist. No. city engaging School that the sporting Falls, promoting Ida- business—that City Idaho also Hanson v. absurd. leasing events or Similarly in 512, (1968). ho 446 P.2d 634 —is effect, is, Complainant’s in contention Board, Idaho Engelking v. Investment all unused at the hall must stand Ida- 217, dealing with (1969), P.2d 213 in demand for times it not when analogous which is ho Art. 8 Const. § objects strictly public Although he use. from lend- the state provision prohibiting profes- only of the hall for to the use credit, ing this court stated its objection is sporting events, if sional his provi- gives, for the reasons he this sustained as used in word 'credit’ “The reasons, any new the effect is confine some imposition implies sion purely public in hall to functions use liability upon the State financial pri- thereby for all exclude its use of State in the creation effect results city affairs, enterpris- vate with the result private benefit debt for the receiving any reve- will be barred P.2d at 217-218. es.” 458 maintenance, the leased land and that the work and the entire nue for by public done contractor. Public thereof will have to be works cost borne required pub- for bids are for all contracts taxpayers. argument Such must be re- that the jected. contemplated lic works it is It is not sound in law busi- when folly expenditure county money practice. to re- will exceed ness It would be $2,500.00. Expenditure is squire I.C. 31-4003. large expensive “ * * * kept in ev- to be idle it defined 31-4002 as structure when use, county might ery whereby it manner and means needed for and when county obligates persons proper funds itself to private for a disburses be used * * funds; rental, county re- advantage to the mutual disburse were taxpayers city permitted spondent argues that since bids those case, present contract in the it.” 166 A. at not let for the 237-238. im- construction of the the contract for Accordingly, it is our consequently provements is void present case does not contra- for the lease. is no consideration prohibitions. vene the constitutional pointed out that First should argues, how paid construction was contracted and for ever, spent public that the has mon county, the Turf facility ies improving the racetrack expenditure of there was no therefore exclusive benefit of the Turf The dis Club. as defined I. funds trict court found that the Turf since respondent argues, C. 31-4002. The possession took however, improvements were that since the only expenditures funds on the: and were the consideration the lease expenditures were the rent, as if the same lieu of the effect was premiums insurance and for a water line rent county had received (cid:127)extension into the leased barn area. The the im- expended construction of it for n court also found that argues bids provements. He (cid:127)county expenditures on the were present required in the case. were premiums and for certain (cid:127)grading and road on access roads to work unnecessary to decide find it We premises. findings These of fact are required here because bids were whether substantial, .supported by competent evi respondent’s contention disagree we binding dence Blan and are on this court. bids, required, they if lack of Brookshier, kenship v. for the lease. destroys the consideration ; Mathews, P.2d Fairchild authority Respondent cites no 415 P.2d 43 true, respondent con proposition. in- case the call for tends, that the effect of failure monetary obligation curred financial or required is when bids expendi- in favor of the Turf All Club. county and between the the contract render primarily tures have redounded the ben- McQuillin, void. the contractor Moreover, public. efit of the the lease 37.106, p. 351. Municipal Corporations, § clearly stating contains clauses comply with the Additionally, failure will be expenses additional of insurance public construc statutory requirements for “nothing here- borne the lessee and that improve may tax bills for render tion con- interpreted in shall be McQuillin, [the lease] See unenforceable. ments lia- place any 37.121, to financial burden p. strued Corporations, Municipal bility to the [county] due Municipal on Lessor McQuillin, Cor ed.), (3d and 14 Also, ed.). -usethereof the Lessees.” 38.178, p. (3d porations, § a criminal bids is advertise failure to respondent strenuously that argues jurisdictions. in some offense contract bids were not let for the 29.29, Corporations, Municipal McQuillin, improvements on for construction of the p. (3d ed.). authority No has been cit- any party that it to deserves hélp no ed, however, found, and none has been getting from the in compensation law holding that where consti- given. value bargain But if the is less lease, tute consideration for a fact that this, bad than if performance a lawful improvements might those not have been has been rendered beneficial to the re- in constructed accordance with it, ceiver of and if the illegal evil and el- requirements destroys considera- them as purposes ements and can be abandoned tion for the lease. and rendered society, harmless to a promise by party the benefited pay to argues that the compensation reasonable benefi- present is void for lack of considera lease performance cial will be enforceable. upon past con tion that it is based performance the executed and the initial which was sideration under the obligation support that moral will it.” It is true that under cer declared invalid. 236, 1A on Corbin Contracts p. 371. past is in tain circumstances consideration present subsequent promise support In case the initial lease was sufficient to a Cooley, held invalid v. 92 Ida the district court due to a contract. See Collord law, respon misinterpretation Idaho case ho 451 P.2d 535 heavily upon explained Fowler v. Cheir which we have and clarified dent relies (1949), in rett, regard Although to the lease. Idaho 205 P.2d 502 second compromise appeal holding this court held that a no from the which unconstitutional, Al gambling debt was unenforceable. the initial lease it was no though appears illegal of that decision that than the second basis more reason upheld an ille refusal to enforce this court has be the court’s lease which contract, Certainly, then, stated that gal present the court that transac- gambling case. illegal gambling tion was not like the con- original “The rule is where Cheirrett, v. su- tract involved in Fowler promise illegality is tainted with it, says, pra. “so Neither was Corbin illegality cannot be removed taint any party to it de- malignantly bad promise, alleged con- a new based getting help the law serves at sideration of old one.” compensation given.” for value In the completed im- Turf Club case the respon- upon language which the It is this as consid- provements substantial value support his contention dent relies lease, was ben- for the initial which eration illegal was declared original since the County as lessors eficial Kootenai court, the taint of the district and void these circumstances Under by the sec- illegality not be could removed support past consideration sufficient upon considera- ond based the same the second lease. supported lease. tion the invalid closely point, cited An Idaho case clear, however, there are It is of the use as an illustration Corbin past considera exceptions rule that prom- support new past consideration promise or support a new tion will not ise, Kunz, 71 P. Sanford con in his treatise on contract. Corbin upheld a this court (1903), in which tracts states repayment of mon- for the second contract degrees illegality. “There are evil had been considera- ey, the loan of bargains are said to malum Some contract. tion for an earlier usurious prohibi- malum se while others it is stated that case accept tum. We do need cancel parties can settled that “It is well theory thing as abso- that there is such a contract, purge destroy the old ex- lute to be aware that these terms evil usury, and make consideration of press degrees harmfulness. relative thereby obligation, and a new basis of bargain may malignantly A bad be so borrower, equity, fair- County in law constructed bind received, money actually pay grounds. and a these im- The determination that provements legal adequate rate of interest therefor.” 9 Idaho consideration acceptance appraised an of their P. at 613. rests on nearly $110,000 the correct value of as Cheirrett, opinion 'It is our that Fowler v. gain from the of the realized measure supra, distinguishable present is from the county. improve- If these grounds case on the that it an il- involved lease, the are consideration for this ments legal gambling contract and that under the should be adequacy of that consideration present circumstances sec- of the case the $110,000 against figure, but tested adequately supported by ond lease was county’s against reversion- the value consideration furnished Turf Club ary buildings at the end interest in the under the initial lease. thirty-eight lease. month present is clear in case improvements According majority’s opinion, constructed on the leased to the property $109,000. in Turf “fairgrounds” are worth The involved area of the found, much, ever, finding, court sc if used and this based Club activities is upon county competent county purposes. is will substantial evidence The Mathews, any binding here. Fairchild horse v. 91 be unable to rent the Blankenship enterprise Idaho P.2d 43 The (1966); racing until 1971. $110,000 Brookshier, P.2d 800 the value Idaho will not realize meaningful improvements to It is clear that in excess of value worth of

$100,000 until passed extent for income or to the in considera- Functionally, expired. tion has after the lease Wheth- fair- therefore, leasing improvements er the were constructed only the Turf Club grounds requirements accordance with reversionary interest here; immaterial the value present the value opinion majority improvements. The given in consideration the lease. enjoy recognizes that the does contention, therefore, Respondent’s the structures interest valuable there is no consideration for the lease expenditure county’s supports it when since bids not let is without asserting: for insurance merit. The lease between Kootenai expenditures “As for is not in Turf Club violation fire premiums for funds for insurance supported and it is Constitution to the buildings leased insurance on The the dis- consideration. convincingly cannot be trict court is therefore reversed. expenditure this is argued that proceedings cause is remanded for further private benefit. county funds for conformity with the views herein ex- in the reversionary interest county has a pressed. appellant. Costs to property covered expensive rather clearly benefit it is

insurance this interest. public to insure SPEAR, JJ., DONALDSON certainly primary not of SCOGGIN, Judge, concur. District only a short who to a lessee benefit property.” term interest McQUADE, (dissenting). Justice is, in reversionary and con- interest I from the must dissent Because this lease, I for the majority. fact, consideration clusion of the this case to remand reverse would I. value finding for a district court adequacy consid- and its of that interest case the lease Consideration lease. support this eration to is stated before us 666 governing open meetings bodies hold II. and give ample notice of to business be consid majori- I am ered and extraordinary sessions.2 The- ty’s is too curso- treatment of I.C. 31-836 pro these controls on ry. interpretation of the brief Under cedures under which bodies conduct decision, today’s a board section given public’s gov is to business insure that may literally agencies, ernment people, creatures of the private quantity to may remain subservient to the informed' virtually persons no notice or people.3 Open will of the meetings, at safeguard long as the term members of the who have- years lease is five or less the members been notice given of the business there to- approving of the board are unanimous participate, be transacted contribute to de charged. the amount of This situ- the rent cisions which are more well reasoned and required by ation is not what law. is based on better information than do meet I, Art. 2 sec. of the Constitution ings ignorant.4 of which the is All premise Idaho states State of the basic open meeting our statutes serve these-

upon government which our form of governmental purposes and concern founded: subject, general the same the democratic- government manner in power which local peo- “2. Political inherent in the should ple.- political power is inherent be should, conducted. statutes These —All people. Government instituted for therefore, together be read demarcating equal protection benefit, their great legislative purpose policy.5 alter, right have the reform or stated, policy, briefly That peo is that the abolish they may the same whenever ple right freely meetings have a attend necessary; special deem it privi- government ap local bodies so as be leges granted shall ever immunities be praised of what occurs there. may altered, revoked, not be re- pealed by legislature.” policy, legislative In service of that legislature meetings determined right appraised govern The to be of what public6 commissioners be ment doing right is a basic of all Ida adjourned special meetings preced hoans and all Americans.1 In service by ample ed there to-be notice the business right principle and of the basic articu public’s attend co nducted.7 Constitution, I, lated art. 2 sec. of our however, meeting value, require we have small if the- several statutes which (1940) Tlennings, People’s Right ; Know, 1. v. Board of Educa 811 Scofield 640, (1959). tion, 11, N.E.2d 643 45 411 Ill. 103 A.B.A.J. 687 (1952) ; v. Kimminau Common School fir., 31-711, 31-713, 31-712, 2. B. I.O. §§ 1, 124, Ivan. 223 P.2d 689 Dist. No. 170 59-1024, 67-5203(1) (2). Bridge (1950); Atchison & Eastern Co. Newspaper County Comm’rs., 3. See Sacramento Guild v. Kan. v. Board of 150 Sup’rs, 34, (1939); 24, Sacramento Cal.App.2d 41, Board of 263 P.2d Clark v. 91 38 Cal.Rptr. (1968) ; 1042, Murray, 533, 69 480 141 Kan. 41 P.2d (1935) ; Board of Education v. State Board of Education, rel. v. 1044 Ayers, State ex McHale 332, 502, 1, 686, N.M. 443 P.2d 79 111 Mont. 105 P.2d 688 (1968). (1940) Pennington State, ; P.2d 170, (Okl.Cr.App.1956) ; 2 & 3 J. Meeting Note, Open 4. See Statutes: Statutory Sutherland, §§ Construction Know,” Fights “Right Press For 4507, 5401, (F. 5202, Horack 3rd. Harv.E.Rev. 1943). ed. Glashoff, Cal.App.2d 5. See Glashoff v. 6. I.C. 31-713. ; 134 P.2d Jordt Education, 31-711, 31-712. §§ v. California State Board of Cal.App.2d 591, 810- explicitly they may matters islature has stated public given notice of the that n withwhich directly not do ? meeting will be concerned.8 implied believe, therefore, that I The economic substance of the transac by concerning framework tion in ex this case is public agencies requirement meetings of a changed a number of for a three at given high that leases bidder year lease. That lease would had á have public a subject public be the auction given exchange if in an value With ample notice.9 meeting preceded has, cash instead of requirement, a these extraordi out such therefore, bought the new works subject nary transactions will not be constructed Turf for value county is a check until after (cid:127)democratic equal to the dollar value that sixty toup a a by lease with term of bound place. would had in the market have requirement be A leases (cid:127)months. such county has, effect, $110,000 had newof meeting, after into a entered public proper works constructed on n preceded n which ample at notice and ty complying without with the bid prepared explain how requirements of 31-4002. This county’s interest will be served transaction has either cost earned the therefore, legisla lease, is, necessary if the taxpayers of Kootenai an amount open meeting laws tive equal to rental which would have been I, giv principle be of art. sec. are to realized if the had been leased opinion majority Because the en effect. unimproved improvements built be require necessity fails to such see expense the lessee’s or if had ment, dissent. I must built the structures and had then

improved property to the Turf Club less improvements. the value Club’s III. say impossible now whether incorrectly majority I believe cost of rental opportunity equal the lost Coun- issue involved Kootenai states the improvements value which prescribed in I. ty’s to take bids failure will receive aas result .of this improvements C. 31-4002 said, however, lease. It can be issue for the lease. The are consideration have funds been denied safe such a tainted is not failure so whether guard legislature in I.C. § improve- disqualify as to transaction Because I 31-4002. believe that eva be considered. The issue is ments important sion of safeguard should to avoid we will allow counties whether countenanced, not be I believe that requirement 31- and, bid of I.C. transaction should declared void10 n 4002 the therefore, as a I must dissent device of lease. Stated from that majority opinion general proposition, will which treats we allow I.C. § indirectly leg- 31-4002. do county to express

8. Access to Governmental Comment, I need at this time con See what, cerning any, California, if the Turf Club Cal.L.Bev. Information expenditures (1966). should be allowed constructing Sutherland, supra generally 9. 3. note id., lease; see void at 157-159. §at Renton, City 10. See Edwards Wash.2d

Case Details

Case Name: Hansen v. Kootenai County Board of County Commissioners

Court Name: Idaho Supreme Court

Date Published: Jun 23, 1970

Citation: 471 P.2d 42

Docket Number: 10458

Court Abbreviation: Idaho