{ "id": 3286927, "name": "Curtis BREWER v. John Wayne CARTER, in His Capacity as Faulkner County Judge; Lonnie Williams, Individually and in His Capacity as Faulkner County Justice of the Peace; and Conark Builders, Inc.", "name_abbreviation": "Brewer v. Carter", "decision_date": "2006-03-09", "docket_number": "05-738", "first_page": "531", "last_page": "536", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "365 Ark. 531" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "231 S.W.3d 707" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "22 S.W. 173", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "year": 1893, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "174", "parenthetical": "\"All of the affairs of the two districts are concerns of the county, and the expenses incurred in both ... constitute demands against the county\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "57 Ark. 554", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1324646 ], "year": 1893, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "559", "parenthetical": "\"All of the affairs of the two districts are concerns of the county, and the expenses incurred in both ... constitute demands against the county\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/57/0554-01" ] }, { "cite": "238 Ark. 162", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1734327 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1964, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/238/0162-01" ] }, { "cite": "338 Ark. 140", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 243540 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1999, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/338/0140-01" ] }, { "cite": "125 F.3d 656", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.3d", "case_ids": [ 910778 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "661" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f3d/125/0656-01" ] }, { "cite": "226 S.W. 529", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "year": 1921, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "530" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "146 Ark. 599", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1585029 ], "year": 1921, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "602" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/146/0599-01" ] }, { "cite": "338 Ark. 9", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 243486 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1999, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/338/0009-01" ] }, { "cite": "360 Ark. 363", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 5462253 ], "weight": 3, "year": 2005, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/360/0363-01" ] }, { "cite": "269 Ark. 441", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1712553 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/269/0441-01" ] }, { "cite": "365 Ark. 200", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 3285777 ], "weight": 3, "year": 2006, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/365/0200-01" ] }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 14-19-106", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 14-23-106", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 14-22-106", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 14-22-102", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "et seq." } ], "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 612, "char_count": 12195, "ocr_confidence": 0.742, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.243077790038435e-07, "percentile": 0.6084202206383461 }, "sha256": "c843ed727983ccc62d900918fb9a89f45b70031ff2255857e6651c656b350962", "simhash": "1:0f891dec4e3a76c7", "word_count": 1926 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:57:27.447488+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Glaze, J., dissents." ], "parties": [ "Curtis BREWER v. John Wayne CARTER, in His Capacity as Faulkner County Judge; Lonnie Williams, Individually and in His Capacity as Faulkner County Justice of the Peace; and Conark Builders, Inc." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Annabelle Clinton Imber, Justice.\nPursuant to Article 16, \u00a7 13 of the Arkansas Constitution and Rule 23 of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure, Appellant Curtis Brewer, a resident and taxpayer of Faulkner County, filed this action on behalf of himself and all other taxpayers in Faulkner County against Appellees John Wayne Carter, individually and in his capacity as Faulkner County Judge, Lonnie Williams, individually and in his official capacity as a Faulkner County Justice of the Peace, and Conark Builders, Inc. On appeal, Brewer contends that the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Appellees because County Judge Carter awarded a contract to Conark Builders to repair a county building without advertising for bids and because Lonnie Williams worked for Conark Builders while also serving as a member of the Faulkner County Quorum Court. The circuit court granted summary judgment and this appeal followed. We affirm on grounds that under the particular facts of this case Brewer lacked standing to bring an illegal-exaction suit.\nIn his amended complaint, Brewer alleged that on March 28, 2000, a building owned by Faulkner County was damaged when the county\u2019s lay-down asphalt machine malfunctioned and ran into an outer wall of the county building. The building was insured by The Travelers Indemnity Company of Illinois (\u201cTravelers Insurance\u201d) through the Association of Arkansas Counties (\u201cAssociation\u201d) with a $1,000.00 per loss deductible. In accordance with that policy, Faulkner County filed a claim with the Association, which in turn reported the claim to Travelers Insurance. Thereafter, Travelers Insurance assigned the claim to Crockett Adjustment. The adjustor began working with Nabholz Construction, the original building contractor for the county building, to determine the amount of damage to the property. Travelers Insurance contracted with Conark Builders, a division of Nabholz Construction, to make the necessary repairs.\nLonnie Williams, a member of the Faulkner County Quorum Court, was a corporate officer in Conark Builders at the time Travelers Insurance entered into the contract with Conark Builders. Thereafter, an invoice was sent to Faulkner County indicating that the total cost of repairs was $28,934.14. On November 13, 2000, Faulkner County received $27,934.14 from Travelers Insurance and deposited the check into the county\u2019s general fund. The Faulkner County Quorum Court authorized payment from county funds in the amount of $28,934.14 and a Claim for Allowance was signed by the county judge\u2019s administrative assistant. On November 29, 2000, Faulkner County paid $28,934.14, including the $1,000 deductible, out of its general fund to Conark Builders.\nBrewer subsequently filed this lawsuit, contending that the county\u2019s payment of $28,934.14 constituted an illegal exaction. Specifically, Brewer contended in relevant part:\nArk. Code Ann. \u00a7 14-22-102 makes it unlawful for any county official to make any purchase with county funds in excess of $10,000.00 unless purchasing procedures of Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 14-22-102 et seq. are followed or unless it is a purchase of an exempt commodity under Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 14-22-106. The purchase of repair to a county building is not found as an exemption. Defendant John Wayne Carter violated the law. Amendment 55 \u00a7 3 to the Arkansas Constitution delegates] the power [to] the county judge to authorize and approve disbursement of appropriated county funds and does not empower the county judge to re-delegate that power to another.\nAppellees filed separate answers and motions for summary judgment. In their motions for summary judgment, Appellees stated that Brewer\u2019s complaint \u201cis couched as an illegal exaction lawsuit, but fails to state a legitimate claim because there are not illegally exacted funds to be returned.\u201d The circuit court granted Appellees\u2019 motions for summary judgment. In the order, the circuit court concluded in part:\nFaulkner County\u2019s payment of $1000 insurance deductible was the satisfaction of an insurance contract obligation and not a \u201cpurchase\u201d that could have been made through competitive bids solicited by the County, and in any event, (sic) the expenditure was less than the dollar amount set by Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 14-22-102 as the threshold for when competitive bidding is required for a County purchase. The payment made was the exact amount actually due, and no more, so there was no failure to comply with Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 14-23-106. The conduct of the County Judge \u2014 to get the damaged building repaired with insurance funds and to pay the $1000 deductible amount owed by the county \u2014 was authorized by Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 14-19-106. . . .\nAs mentioned earlier, Brewer contends on appeal that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Appellees as to his illegal-exaction claim. Moreover, Brewer also contends that the circuit court erred in refusing to certify his suit as a class action. Because this appeal presents an issue involving the interpretation of the Arkansas Constitution, our jurisdiction is pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 1-2(a)(1) (2005).\nArticle 16, Section 13 of the Arkansas Constitution provides: \u201cAny citizen of the county, city, or town may institute suit in behalf of himself and all others interested, to protect the inhabitants thereof against the enforcement of any illegal exactions whatever.\u201d Under Article 16, Section 13, citizens ofa county have standing to pursue an illegal-exaction claim. White v. Ark. Capital Corporation/Diamond State Ventures, 365 Ark. 200, 226 S.W.3d 825 (2006). An illegal exaction is defined as any exaction that either is not authorized by law or is contrary to law. Id. (citing Munson v. Abbott, 269 Ark. 441, 602 S.W.2d 649 (1980)). Two types of illegal-exaction cases can arise under Article 16, Section 13: \u201cpublic funds\u201d cases, where the plaintiff contends that public funds generated from tax dollars are being misapplied or illegally spent, and \u201cillegal-tax\u201d cases, where the plaintiff asserts that the tax itself is illegal. McGhee v. Ark. State Bd. of Collection Agencies, 360 Ark. 363, 201 S.W.3d 375 (2005)). This is a \u201cpublic-funds\u201d case in which Brewer claims the county misused public funds in connection with the repair of its damaged building. As a general rule, we have explained that citizens have standing to bring a \u201cpublic funds\u201d case because they have a vested interest in ensuring that the tax money they have contributed to a state or local government treasury is lawfully spent. Ghegan & Ghegan, Inc. v. Weiss, 338 Ark. 9, 991 S.W.2d 536 (1999). This court has stated that \u201ca misapplication by a public official of funds arising from taxation constitutes an exaction from the tax payers and empowers any citizen to maintain a suit to prevent such misapplication of funds.\u201d Farrell v. Oliver, 146 Ark. 599, 602, 226 S.W. 529, 530 (1921).\nBefore addressing the merits of Brewer\u2019s points on appeal, Appellees Williams and Conark Builders contend that the circuit court\u2019s order may be affirmed because Brewer did not have standing to bring an illegal-exaction lawsuit. Specifically, Appellees Williams and Conark Builders argue that \u201c[w]hile Mr. Brewer alleges that funds were illegally spent for the repair of the county building, he lacks standing to file such a claim because the taxpayers of Faulkner County have not been injured by the payment for the repairs.\u201d Citing Brouhard v. Lee, 125 F.3d 656, 661 (8th Cir. 1997), Appellees Williams and Conark Builders further contend, \u201cTo establish standing, a party must, at a minimum, have suffered an \u2018injury in fact,\u2019 fairly traceable to defendant\u2019s conduct, which is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision.\u201d Id. Stated differently, Appellees Williams and Conark Builders allege that they did not cause the taxpayers to suffer an injury because Travelers Insurance, not Faulkner County, contracted for and paid for the county building repairs. Appellees Williams and Conark Builders also assert that Brewer lacks standing because a circuit court order would not redress any alleged injury; in other words, any illegal-exaction finding would not change the county\u2019s obligation under the insurance contract to pay the $1,000 deductible.\nWe treat the question of standing as a threshold matter. Brewer asserts that the county improperly contracted with Conark Builders, without properly advertising for bids, and in so doing economically benefitted Lonnie Williams who worked for Conark Builders while also serving as a member of the Faulkner County Quorum Court. The record, however, reveals that the contracting parties in this case were Travelers Insurance and Conark Builders. While the county, through the Association, had an insurance contract with Travelers Insurance, Travelers Insurance negotiated the repair contract with Conark Builders. In other words, the county was not a party to the agreement for repairs. As a result, Travelers Insurance was the real party in interest. Even if the circuit court were to rule in favor of Brewer on the illegal-exaction claim, Travelers Insurance would be the injured party, not Faulkner County. As a result of such a ruling by the circuit court, Conark Builders would return the sum of $28,934.14 to the county, and the county would then be obligated to pay Travelers Insurance the entire sum, including the $1,000 deductible payable under the insurance agreement. Travelers Insurance would then turn around and pay the entire sum back to Conark Builders pursuant to its repair contract with Conark Builders.\nIt is axiomatic that before a public-funds type of illegal exaction will be allowed to proceed, there must be facts showing that monies generated from tax dollars or arising from taxation are at stake. As the plaintiff in this case, it was incumbent upon Brewer to demonstrate his standing to bring an illegal-exaction claim. Under our case law, this requires a showing that the funds were generated from tax dollars or otherwise arising from taxation. See Western Foods, Inc. v. Weiss, 338 Ark. 140, 992 S.W.2d 100 (1999). See also McGhee v. Ark. State Bd. of Collection Agencies, supra. Brewer acknowledged in his deposition that $27,934.14 came from Travelers Insurance to pay for repairs made to the building by Conark Builders and that the only amount of taxpayer money used was $1,000. With regard to the latter sum, it is undisputed that the county\u2019s payment of the $1,000 insurance deductible was the exact amount owed under its insurance contract. Thus, under these circumstances, we conclude that Brewer lacked standing to bring an illegal-exaction suit.\nIn view of our holding that under the particular facts of this case Brewer lacked standing to bring an illegal-exaction claim, we are precluded from addressing the merits of the issues raised on appeal.\nAffirmed.\nGlaze, J., dissents.\nNotwithstanding his admission to the contrary, Brewer suggests on appeal that \u201conce insurance proceeds are deposited to the county general fund it assumes a new identity as commingled and indistinguishable funds,\u201d citing Woolard v. Thomas, 238 Ark. 162, 381 S.W.2d 453 (1964). That case, however, is inapposite. At issue in Wooiard was whether a county with two separate judicial districts should credit insurance proceeds for the reconstruction of one district\u2019s courthouse to a special account or to the county\u2019s general fund. We upheld the county\u2019s allocation ofinsurance funds to its general fund, citing Hutchinson v. Ozark Land Co,, 57 Ark. 554, 559, 22 S.W. 173, 174 (1893) (\u201cAll of the affairs of the two districts are concerns of the county, and the expenses incurred in both ... constitute demands against the county\u201d).", "type": "majority", "author": "Annabelle Clinton Imber, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Phil Stratton, for appellant.", "Duncan and Rainwater, P.A., by: Michael Rainwater and JaNan Arnold Davis, for appellee John Wayne Carter.", "Brazil, Adlong & Winningham, PLC, by: William C. Brazil, for appellee Lonnie Williams." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Curtis BREWER v. John Wayne CARTER, in His Capacity as Faulkner County Judge; Lonnie Williams, Individually and in His Capacity as Faulkner County Justice of the Peace; and Conark Builders, Inc.\n05-738\n231 S.W.3d 707\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered March 9, 2006\nPhil Stratton, for appellant.\nDuncan and Rainwater, P.A., by: Michael Rainwater and JaNan Arnold Davis, for appellee John Wayne Carter.\nBrazil, Adlong & Winningham, PLC, by: William C. Brazil, for appellee Lonnie Williams." }, "file_name": "0531-01", "first_page_order": 557, "last_page_order": 562 }