Opinion ID: 2538052
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Board's Improper Actions are Voidable by a Court.

Text: As noted above, when an agency takes action that is not in substantial compliance with the law, that action shall be voidable by a court. KRS 61.848. A voidable action is an action that is valid until it is annulled. Black's Law Dictionary 1709 (9th ed.2009). The Board and Smith contend the statute, despite its plain language, should be read to require that action not in substantial compliance is not voidable but instead is void, that is, a nullity from the outset. Black's Law Dictionary 1709 (9th ed.2009). We are bound, however, by basic principles of statutory construction to the plain language of the statute. When interpreting a statute, [r]esort must be had first to the words, which are decisive if they are clear. Commonwealth v. Gaitherwright, 70 S.W.3d 411, 414 (Ky.2002). The plain meaning of the statutory language is presumed to be what the legislature intended, and if the meaning is plain, then the court cannot base its interpretation on any other method or source. Stopher v. Conliffe, 170 S.W.3d 307, 308-09 (Ky.2005). The language in this provision is clear. The General Assembly specifically stated that noncompliant action is voidable, not void. We may not interpret a statute at variance with its stated language. Birdsong v. State, 347 S.W.3d 47, 49 (Ky.2011). What's more, previous decisions have recognized this provision means what it unambiguously says, that noncompliant action is valid until nullified by a court. The court in Stinson v. State Bd. of Accountancy, 625 S.W.2d 589, 592 (Ky. App.1981) clarified that the voidability provision renders an action taken without substantial compliance with KRS 61.815, not void but voidable. Further, the Attorney General explained over thirty years ago, [A]ctions taken in violation of the Open Meetings Law are voidable by the circuit court. This means that any person may bring an action in the circuit court and if the court finds that the board violated the law, it may declare the action taken void and of no effect. Until the action taken is declared void by the court it remains an official and a valid action of the board.... 79 Op. Ky. Att'y Gen. 516 (1979). Additionally, courts in other jurisdictions with similar voidability provisions in their open meetings laws have adhered to the same interpretation. The comparable provision in New Jersey states, Any action taken by a public body at a meeting which does not conform with the provisions of this act shall be voidable. N.J.S.A. 10:4-15(a). As that state's Superior Court explained, A voidable act is one which may be avoided, but until this is done, in the regular course of judicial proceedings, the action stands in full force and effect. Houman v. Mayor and Council of Borough of Pompton Lakes, 155 N.J.Super. 129, 382 A.2d 413, 429 (N.J.Super.Ct. Law Div.1977). Louisiana has also interpreted its voidability provision to mean that action taken by a public body without compliance with the open meeting law is voidable, not an absolute nullity. Wagner v. Beauregard Parish Police Jury, 525 So.2d 166, 170 (La.Ct.App.1988). And courts in Texas, have repeatedly explained that its open meeting act expressly provides `[a]n action by a governmental body in violation of this chapter is voidable'  not void or void ab initio. The terms have distinct legal meanings. If an action is void or void ab initio, the transaction is a nullity. If, however, conduct is merely voidable, the act is valid until adjudicated and declared void. Love Terminal Partners v. City of Dallas, 256 S.W.3d 893, 897 (Tex.App.2008). Accordingly, Carter's consulting contract was valid until nullified by the circuit court, effective as of the entry of the temporary injunction on March 18, 2003. Carter thus may retain the monies already paid him under the contract for the work he has performed, but he is not entitled to any additional payments. The funds in the escrow account belong to the Bourbon County public schools.