Title: PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF OKLAHOMA v. NORTHEASTERN OKLAHOMA ELECTRIC COOP., INC.

State: oklahoma

Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Document:

PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF OKLAHOMA v. NORTHEASTERN OKLAHOMA ELECTRIC COOP., INC.  PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF OKLAHOMA v. NORTHEASTERN OKLAHOMA ELECTRIC COOP., INC. 2002 OK 29 49 P.3d 80 Case Number: 95869 Decided: 04/23/2002 Mandate Issued: 05/16/2002 THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF OKLAHOMA, an Oklahoma Corporation, Plaintiff/Appellee v. NORTHEASTERN OKLAHOMA ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., an Oklahoma Corporation, Defendant/Appellant [49 P.3d 80] On appeal from Rogers County District Court The Honorable Jack K. Mayberry, Presiding ¶0 Town of Chelsea passed annexation ordinance, failed to publish the ordinance pursuant to Okla. Stat. tit. 11, § 14-106 (2001), and recorded the ordinance in the Rogers' County Clerk's office pursuant to Okla. Stat. tit. 11, § 21-112 (2001). Rural electric cooperative began furnishing electric service within the area about 3 years later. Electric company holding franchise to provide electric service within the Town of Chelsea filed for an injunction against rural electric cooperative. District court enjoined the rural electric cooperative from providing electric service within the annexed area. This Court retained the appeal for disposition on the merits. AFFIRMED. Leonard M. Logan, IV, Todd E. Kolczun, Logan & Lowry, LLP, Vinita, Oklahoma, for the appellant Jay M. Galt, Marjorie McCullough, White Coffey, Galt & Fite, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Stratton Taylor, Mark Ramsey, Taylor, Burrage, Foster, Mallett, Downs & Ramsey, Claremore, Oklahoma, for the appellee. Diane Pedicord, Sue Ann Nicely, Oklahoma Municipal League, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for the amicus curiae, Oklahoma Municipal League, Inc. HODGES, J. I. ISSUE ¶1 The issue before this Court is whether title 11, section 21-112 of the Oklahoma Statutes cures defects in the publication procedures after an ordinance has been duly passed by a town. We hold the section 21-112's conclusive evidence provision cures the Town of Chelsea's failure to comply with title 11, section 14-106's publication requirements. II. FACTS ¶2 The facts are undisputed. Northeastern Oklahoma Electric Cooperative, Inc. (NOEC) is a rural electric cooperative which is authorized to operate in rural areas. Okla. Stat. tit. 18, §437.2 (d) (2001). Public Service Company of Oklahoma (PSO) owns a franchise for the purpose of providing electrical service with the Town of Chelsea, Oklahoma. ¶3 The sole owner of property in an area known as the Chelsea Industrial Park (Park) petitioned the Town of Chelsea to annex the area. See id. at 21-105. Notice of the presentation of the petition to the Town of Chelsea's board of trustees was given for two consecutive weeks pursuant to title 11, section 21-105. In 1997, the board of trustees adopted an ordinance annexing the area. The ordinance was not published as a legal notice after its adoption although the local newspaper reported on the trustee's meeting, including the ordinance. On August 20, 1997, the ordinance was recorded in the Rogers County Clerk's office pursuant to title 11, section 21-112 . ¶4 In 2000, NOEC began furnishing electric service within the Park. PSO filed a suit for injunctive relief, asserting by virtue of the ordinance's passage, its filing with the county clerk, and its franchise, that it has the exclusive right to provide electric service within the Park. NOEC contended that the ordinance was not published and never took effect, the Chelsea Industrial Park is not a part of the Town of Chelsea, and therefore, [49 P.3d 81] NOEC, not PSO, has the right to provide electric service to the area. ¶5 Initially, the district court agreed with NOEC. However, after PSO filed a motion to reconsider, the district court enjoined NOEC from providing electric service within the Park. NOEC appealed. This Court retained the appeal for disposition. III. STANDING ¶6 PSO asserts that NOEC does not have standing to contest the effectiveness of the annexation ordinance. Generally, the corporate limits of a municipality cannot be collaterally attacked except by the state acting through its attorney general. Biggerstaff v. City of Altus,, IV. EFFECTIVE DATE OF ORDINANCE ¶7 Both parties agree that NOEC's right to provide electric service to the Park hinges on whether the ordinance passed by the board of trustees became effective before NOEC began service within the Park. ¶8 Title 11, section 14-103 provides for an emergency measure to go into effect upon its final passage unless the measure specifies a later date. Section 14-106 requires that a measure be published within fifteen days after its passage. Had the Town of Chelsea followed section 14-106, it is unquestioned that the annexation ordinance would have become effective when it was published. East Central Okla. Elec. Co-op, Inc. v. Oklahoma Gas & Elec. Co., ¶9 Pursuant to title 11, section 21-112 , the mayor of a town must file an annexation ordinance in the county clerk's office, and the record in the county clerk's office is conclusive evidence of the annexation. The purpose of recording is to give notice to interested parties that an area has been annexed, the same purpose as publication. Burgess v. Independent Sch. Dist. No. 1, ¶10 Because section 21-112 was intended to remedy procedural defects in the annexation process, it is a curative statute. A curative statute is "one which, while marking out a course for the officers to pursue, at the same time declares that certain irregularities shall not vitiate any proceedings that shall be had under the statute." Welborn v. Whitney, ¶11 Curative statutes have long been recognized by this Court as effectively curing non-jurisdictional procedural defects. Public Serv. Co. of Okla. v. Parkinson, ¶12 In the present case, the Board of Trustees had authority to annex the Park. It followed the statutory procedures necessary for the annexation. It is unchallenged that the Park was properly annexed. Only the publication after adoption of the ordinance was omitted. The Legislature did not have to require the publication of the ordinance after it was adopted by the Board of Trustees. ¶13 The Legislature had the authority to cure defects caused from the failure to publish the ordinance after its adoption through section 21-112. Because the defect in the publication was cured by section 21-112, the ordinance became effective when it was filed in office of the county clerk and before NOEC initiated service within the Chelsea Industrial Park. Thus, the trial court was correct in issuing an injunction against NOEC. ¶14 This conclusion is consistent with rules of statutory construction utilized to determine legislative intent. "Where two or more enactments are involved, the primary objective is to determine the latest expression of the legislative will." Grand River Dam Auth. v. State, ¶15 In the same manner, the amendment to section 21-112 to include the conclusive evidence language was intentional and, in this case, significant. We will not deem the Legislature to have done a vain or useless act. Johnson v. City of Woodward, ¶16 PSO relies on East Central Okla. Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Oklahoma Gas & Elec. Co., V. CONCLUSION ¶17 Pursuant to title 11, section 21-112 , recording the annexation ordinance in the Rogers' County Clerk's office cured the failure to follow section 14-106's publication requirements. The annexation was effective upon its recording in the Rogers' County Clerk's office. NOEC was not providing electric service to the Chelsea Industrial Park prior to the Park's annexation to the Town of Chelsea, and PSO had an exclusive franchise to provide electric service to the Chelsea Industrial Park. Therefore, the Rogers County District Court properly enjoined NOEC . AFFIRMED [49 P.3d 83]. ¶18 Hargrave, C.J., Watt, V.C.J., Hodges, Lavender, Opala, Winchester, JJ., Concur. ¶19 Kauger, Summers, Boudreau, JJ., Dissent. FOOT