Redwine v. StateRedwine v. State
Fred G. REDWINE and Newton Paul, Jr.
v.
STATE of Louisiana, et al.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.
Daniel E. Broussard, Alexandria, for plaintiffs/appellants, Fred G. Redwine and Newton Paul, Jr.
*62 Roger G. Broussard, Baton Rouge, for defendant/appellee-appellant State, through Dept. of Public Safety and Corrections.
Before LOTTINGER, C.J., and SHORTESS and CARTER, JJ.
CARTER, Judge.
This is an appeal from a trial court judgment in a class action suit for declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and damages.
FACTS
The individual plaintiffs and members of the plaintiff classes were the duly qualified and elected justices of the peace and/or constables in the State of Louisiana for terms of office beginning January 1, 1985. Prior to July 1, 1988, the plaintiffs and members of the plaintiff classes were receiving $50.00 per month from the State of Louisiana, through the Department of Public Safety and Corrections, under the provisions of
On October 6, 1988, the individual plaintiffs, Fred G. Redwine and Newton Paul, Jr., filed the instant class action suit for declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and damages. Named as defendants in the action were the State of Louisiana and the State of Louisiana, through the Department of Public Safety and Corrections, collectively referred to as the Department. By order, dated January 16, 1990, the class, constituted of all persons who held elective offices of justice of the peace or constable of the State of Louisiana on or after July 1, 1988, was certified.[1]
Thereafter, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and members of the plaintiff classes, declaring that the termination of the $50.00 per month salary supplement during the elective term ending December 31, 1990, was in violation of LSA-Const. Art. 5, § 21 and Art. 10, § 23. The trial court also awarded each plaintiff and each member of the plaintiff class who held offices of justice of the peace or constable within the State of Louisiana the sum of $50.00 per month from July 1, 1988, through December 31, 1990, together with legal interest thereon from the due date of each payment until paid.[2] The trial court denied plaintiffs request for injunctive relief and cast the Department with costs in the amount of $282.50.
From the adverse judgment, plaintiffs appeal, assigning the following errors:
1. The trial court erred as a matter of law in failing to award plaintiffs' damages after December 31, 1990.
2. The trial court erred as a matter of law in failing to grant plaintiffs' injunctive relief.[3]
The Department also appealed the trial court judgment, assigning the following errors:
1. The trial court erred as a matter of law in ordering defendant to pay fifty dollars per month per class ... [member] from July 1, 1988 to December 31, 1990.
*63 2. The trial court erred in awarding costs to petitioners.[4]
3. The trial court erred in finding the action of the Louisiana Legislature to be violative ofLa. Const. Art. 5 , Sect. 21 and Art. 10, Sect. 23 without findingLSA-R.S. 13:2591 to be unconstitutional.
COMPENSATION DUE A JUSTICE OF THE PEACE OR CONSTABLE
Justices of the peace courts are constitutional offices exercising the judicial power of the State of Louisiana, and presiding justices are judges within the contemplation of the law. LSA-Const. Art. 5, § 20; In Re Wilkes,
Constables are elected public officials, and pursuant to LSA-Const. Art. 10, § 23 "[t]he compensation of an elected public official shall not be reduced during the term for which he is elected."
Generally, the legislature may do anything which the Constitution does not prohibit. Medlen v. State,
In the instant case, at all times pertinent hereto,
Every justice of the peace and every constable for each justice of the peace court in the state shall be paid by the state an additional salary equal to the amount paid justices of the peace and constables by their respective parishes, in no event to exceed one hundred dollars per month for a justice of the peace and fifty dollars per month for a constable.
The parties stipulated that the individual plaintiffs and members of the plaintiff classes were duly elected and qualified justices of the peace and/or constables, elected for terms of office beginning January 1, 1985. The parties further stipulated that, prior to July 1, 1988, when the Department ceased paying the $50.00 salary supplement, the individual plaintiffs and members of the plaintiff classes received $50.00 per month from the Department pursuant to
The Department contends that the trial court erred in ordering it to pay fifty dollars per month per class member from July 1, 1988, to December 31, 1990. The Department argues that
*64 The Department's reliance on Quarles is clearly misplaced. In Quarles, a justice of the peace was re-elected to a term of office commencing January, 1984. When this term of office commenced, all justices of the peace were receiving a monthly salary of $250.00 from the parish police jury and a monthly supplement from the Department of $50.00. In addition to the parish and state salaries, the justices received statutory fees for civil work. The justice of the peace also received an additional salary supplement of $150.00 from the parish. In February, 1984, the parish police jury voted to terminate the $150.00 salary supplement. The justice of the peace filed suit against the parish and the Department. In his suit against the Department, the justice sought an order requiring the Department to pay him an additional $50.00 over and above the $50.00 he currently received from the Department pursuant to
The issue before the court in Quarles was not the plaintiff's entitlement to the $50.00 salary supplement in effect at the time his term of office commenced. Accordingly, the facts of Quarles are clearly distinguishable from the facts in the instant case, and the holding in Quarles is inapplicable to the instant case.
Under
We note that during the 1988 legislative session, the legislature did not amend
We note that, by Acts 1992, No. 897 the legislature amended and reenacted
Every justice of the peace and every constable for each justice of the peace court in the state shall be paid by the state an additional salary equal to the amount paid justices of the peace and constables by their respective parishes, in no event to exceed one hundred dollars per month, provided funds are available and appropriated by the legislature. (Emphasis added.)
Clearly, for all justices of the peace and constables whose terms of office commenced *65 after the effective date of the 1992 amendment to
Because of our determination that plaintiffs and members of the plaintiff classes are entitled to the $50.00 pay supplement during the terms of office commenced prior to August 21, 1992, we find it unnecessary to address the other issues raised on appeal.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the judgement of the trial court is affirmed in all respects. Costs of this appeal, in the amount of $513.39, are assessed against the Department.
AFFIRMED.
ON REHEARING.
PER CURIAM.
It has been called to our attention in an application for rehearing that, although we determined that the plaintiffs and the members of the plaintiff classes are entitled to the $50.00 monthly pay supplement during the terms of office commenced prior to August 21, 1992, we failed to modify the trial court judgment to award the plaintiffs the salary supplement after December 31, 1990.
Clearly, all justices of the peace and constables included as appropriate plaintiffs in this litigation who were elected to terms of office which commenced prior to August 21, 1992 (the effective date of Acts 1992, No. 897), are entitled to the $50.00 monthly pay supplement. As such, the trial court judgment should have been amended to award the plaintiffs and the members of the plaintiff classes the monthly salary supplement from January 1, 1991, through July 31, 1994.
Therefore, the application for rehearing is granted for the limited purpose of amending the conclusion and decree of our original judgment to provide as follows:
For the above reasons, the trial court judgment is amended to award the plaintiffs and the members of the plaintiff classes the sum of $50.00 per month from January 1, 1991, through July 31, 1994, together with legal interest thereon from each payment's due date until paid. In all respects, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Costs of this appeal, in the amount of $513.39, are assessed against the Department.
AMENDED AND, AS AMENDED, AFFIRMED.
NOTES
Notes
[1] The order also declared that the judgment would be binding on all members of the class who failed to give written notice of their exclusion from the class on or before February 1, 1990. Fifty-eight justices of the peace and/or constables were subsequently excluded from the class action by order dated December 21, 1990.
[2] Specifically excluded from the judgment were the members excluded from the class by the December 21, 1990, order.
[3] At oral argument and in a supplemental brief submitted to this court, counsel for plaintiffs notified the court that by Acts 1994, No. 15, effective August 15, 1994, the legislature funded the supplemental salary payments for elected justices of the peace and constables and that the plaintiffs were presently receiving the salary supplement. Counsel argued that the reinstatement of the salary supplement rendered moot his claim for injunctive relief. Therefore, this issue is no longer before the court.
[4] The Department failed to brief this error on appeal. Under the Uniform Rules, Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-12.4, the failure to brief an error constitutes an abandonment of that issue on appeal.
[5]
[6] By Acts 1994, No. 15, effective August 15, 1994, the legislature funded the supplemental salary payments for elected justices of the peace and constables.
[7] At the time of the court's decision in Quarles v. Jackson Parish Police Jury,
Every justice of the peace and every constable for each justice of the peace court in the state shall be paid by the state an additional salary equal to the amount paid justices of the peace and constables by their respective parishes, in no event to exceed one hundred dollars per month for a justice of the peace and fifty dollars per month for a constable.
[8] Although the Department contends that the trial court erred in finding the actions of the legislature would be violative of the constitution without finding