Preview:

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS NOS. 100,846 100,847 LINDA WEBER, In Her Capacity as Marshall County Treasurer Appellee, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MARSHALL COUNTY, KANSAS, Appellant.

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

1. Motor vehicle registration and titling is required by Kansas state law. As part of the statutory system, all prescribed fees for annual motor vehicle registrations and certificates of title must be paid to the county treasurer of the county in which the applicant resides or has an office or principal place of business. The county treasurer collects these fees on the state's behalf and processes the registrations and titles in the manner required by law and regulation.

2. In exchange for the services provided to the state by the county treasurers, Kansas state law authorizes withholding a portion of the collected motor vehicle registration and titling revenue to offset local expenses and pay extra compensation to county treasurers. The remainder is remitted to the Secretary of Revenue, who in turn deposits those proceeds into the state treasury.

3. Statutory interpretation presents a question of law over which an appellate court has unlimited review.

1

4. When interpreting a statute, a court must give ordinary words their ordinary meaning. Further, if the statute is plain and unambiguous, a court need not speculate as to legislative intent nor resort to statutory construction.

5. In cases decided on stipulated facts, an appellate court has as good an opportunity to examine and consider the evidence as did the court below and to determine de novo what the facts establish. In such cases, an appellate court is free to review the stipulated facts and draw its own conclusions.

6. A board of county commissioners acts in an administrative capacity when it sets county officials' salaries.

7. A board of county commissioners' administrative action is reviewable by a court if the action is illegal. Finding illegality in official conduct relates to the procedural aspects of the proceedings and the determination as to whether the action taken was within the authority of the board.

8. A county treasurer has both county and state duties imposed upon that office by Kansas law.

9. K.S.A. 2008 Supp. 8-145(b) creates a special fund for the deposit of the local share of proceeds from vehicle registrations and titling and specifies who controls disbursements from that fund and for what purposes. The statute provides the fund is appropriated for the county

2

treasurer's use in paying for necessary help and expenses incidental to the statute's administration.

10. A board of county commissioners has no interest in the special fund created by K.S.A. 2008 Supp. 8-145(b), except a contingent interest in any proceeds remaining at the end of a calendar year after the county treasurer fulfills the state responsibilities for motor vehicle registration and titling as set out in the statutes.

11. When calculating a county treasurer's annual salary for fulfilling county responsibilities, a board of county commissioners may not consider the county treasurer's extra compensation provided in K.S.A. 2008 Supp. 8-145(b). Such consideration would subvert the legislative intent to give the county treasurer the benefit of that additional compensation.

Appeal from Marshall district court; JAMES A. PATTON, judge. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions. Opinion filed December 4, 2009.

Brian S. Carroll, county attorney, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellant.

Darin M. Conklin, of Alderson, Alderson, Weiler, Conklin, Burghart & Crow, L.L.C., of Topeka, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellee.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

BILES, J.: This is an appeal in two consolidated cases from the Marshall County District Court. Both lawsuits were filed by the county treasurer seeking equitable relief and damages against the Board of County of Commissioners of Marshall County. The centerpiece for this dispute is the money raised pursuant to K.S.A. 2008 Supp. 8-145 from fees paid by the public to the county treasurer to register and title motor vehicles. Both the Board and the county treasurer claim control over these funds.

3

The statute requires county treasurers to collect these motor vehicle fees on the state's behalf. It also requires the proceeds to be deposited into a statutorily-created special fund known as the motor vehicle fund. A portion of this money is set aside by law to help defray the county treasurer's office expenses for providing this locally-based processing service for the state. The statute also provides extra compensation for the county treasurer for overseeing the endeavor.

Our current controversy is a matter seemingly put to rest by this court 65 years ago in Wyandotte County Comm'rs v. Ferguson, 159 Kan. 80, 151 P.2d 694 (1944). In that case, the county commission attempted to control the county treasurer's payments from the special fund to satisfy motor vehicle registration expenses. Ruling in the county treasurer's favor and against the county commission's attempt to inject itself into the process for authorizing special fund payments, this court described the nearly identical statutory language as follows:

"We find no ambiguity whatever in section 8-145 as to the handling of the fees by the county treasurer or as to the status of that portion retained by [the county treasurer] for administrative purposes, or as to where the legislature lodged administrative responsibility. No words could be clearer or more definite." (Emphasis added.) 159 Kan. at 85.

Nevertheless, issues persisted in our state. See Att'y Gen. Op. No. 91-65 (answering whether a board of county commissioners may set a county treasurer's salary based on the amount that official will receive from the state pursuant to K.S.A. 1990 Supp. 8-145); Att'y Gen. Op. No. 82-76 (answering whether a county treasurer solely determines the salary of staff provided for by K.S.A. 8-145[b] and whether a board of county commissioners has any authority over K.S.A. 8-145[b] operations); Att'y Gen. Op. No. 80-206 (answering whether a county treasurer is authorized under special circumstances as provided by law to disburse county funds without a board of county commissioners' permission); and Att'y Gen. Op. No. 79-74 (answering whether a county treasurer may pay staff bonuses from the motor vehicle fund for overtime and whether the board of county commissioners may stop payment for staff paychecks drawn on the motor vehicle fund). We again address the question in the hope of reinvigorating the Ferguson court's holdings and providing further guidance for county officials.

4

The district court in this case enjoined the Board from: (1) directly or indirectly spending, allocating, or directing money from the motor vehicle fund to pay for the county treasurer's salary for county services performed on behalf of Marshall County; and (2) directing or requiring the county treasurer to use a purchase order process to give the Board preapproval control over the treasurer's acquisition of equipment or supplies purchased through the motor vehicle fund. We affirm those rulings. A third order entered against the Board is unchallenged on appeal. It prohibits the Board from restricting the county treasurer's ability to hire, fire, or otherwise administer the county treasurer's duties or the personnel employed in the county treasurer's office pursuant to K.S.A. 8-145 and K.S.A. 19-501 et seq.

We also affirm the district court's order that Weber is entitled to be paid $10,200 for her motor vehicle registration work in 2007 as required by K.S.A. 8-145(b). This amount represents the extra compensation directed by statute to the county treasurer under a statutory formula, as determined by the district court. That money is paid from the motor vehicle fund

Download Weber v. Board of Marshall County Comm'rs.pdf

Kansas Law