Opinion ID: 2571651
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: the validity of the stipulated settlement

Text: The Road Users argue that the stipulation for settlement was unauthorized because there was no public hearing and no vote of the County Commissioners. They maintain that the signature and authorization by the County Chairman was not sufficient for valid County commission action, and that neither was the Chairman's belief that he had commission consensus after informal discussion. The Ranch Owners respond that the stipulation meets the Idaho Code requirement for records of County Commissioners, namely that such records need only be signed by the Chairman and the Clerk, Idaho Code § 31-707 (1996), to be valid. They argue that the County's compliance with the statute requiring County action to be in their minutes is not a prerequisite to the validity of the acts and proceedings of the Board, citing Sims v. Milwaukee Land Co., 20 Idaho 513, 119 P. 37 (1911). The Ranch Owners maintain that the Road Users will not deny that there was consensus, and that a stipulation should generally be upheld, and may be vacated only if good cause is shown and all parties can be placed in the same position they were in before the stipulation, which they say is impossible because of the easements granted in reliance on the stipulation. Generally, [s]tipulations for the settlement of litigation are regarded with favor by the courts and will be enforced unless good cause to the contrary is shown. Conley v. Whittlesey, 126 Idaho 630, 634, 888 P.2d 804, 808 (Ct.App.1995). The stipulation in this case was entered into by a County, and County commission action is presumed valid until the contrary is shown. State v. Clark, 88 Idaho 365, 377, 399 P.2d 955, 962 (1965). To be facially valid, a County board record must be signed by the chairman and the clerk. Idaho Code § 31-707. Also, [t]he board must cause to be kept ... [m]inute records, in which must be recorded all orders and decisions made by them, and the daily proceedings had at all regular and special meetings. Idaho Code § 31-709(1). The stipulation agreement is facially valid. The County Chairperson signed the stipulation on August 4, 1998, and it was attested to by the County clerk. The burden, then, is on the Road Users to show that the stipulation is void or that otherwise there is good cause for this Court not to enforce the agreement. The absence of minutes on the record regarding a County board decision to quitclaim all property interest in the Indian Creek Road to Ranch Owners does not by itself invalidate the stipulation agreement. The Idaho Code requires the County clerk to record in the minutes all orders and decisions that the County board makes. However, this Court held in Sims v. Milwaukee Land Co., 20 Idaho 513, 119 P. 37 (1911), that the lack of recorded minutes regarding a County action does not invalidate that County action. In that case, a ferry operator had obtained a business license from the County board of commissioners to operate his ferry. The court stated: If the applicant did those things required of him by law in making his application for a license, and upon doing so the board had issued to him a license, he could not be denied the rights conferred upon him by the license by the mere failure of the board to record the minutes showing such proceedings, and the license upon its face was sufficient, in the first instance, to show his right to construct and maintain the ferry, and, if the respondent under its answer was able to show that the plaintiff had not complied with the law, then that was a matter of defense. Id. at 524, 119 P. at 40. In this case the absence of minutes regarding a County board transaction does not by itself invalidate the stipulation. The County action is presumed valid, yet subject to other defenses. Those defenses exist. It appears that the stipulation was a product of proceedings in violation of the open meeting laws. The general Idaho open meeting laws are found at I.C. §§ 67-2340 to 67-2347. Idaho Code section 67-2342(1) provision states, [A]ll meetings of a governing body of a public agency shall be open to the public and all persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting except as otherwise provided by this act. No decision at a meeting of a governing body of a public agency shall be made by secret ballot. The term meeting is defined as the convening of a governing body of a public agency to make a decision or to deliberate toward a decision on any matter. I.C. § 67-2341(6). The term decision is defined as any determination, action, vote or final disposition upon a motion, proposal, resolution, order, ordinance or measure on which a vote of a governing body is required, at any meeting at which a quorum is present.... I.C. § 67-2341(1). The code section defining the specific responsibilities and duties of the county board of commissioners also provides an open meeting requirement: All meetings of the board [of county commissioners] must be public, and the books, records, and accounts must be kept at the office of the clerk, open at all times for public inspection, free of charge. The clerk of the board must give five (5) days' public notice of all special or adjourned meetings, stating the business to be transacted, by posting three (3) notices in conspicuous places, one (1) of which shall be at the courthouse door. I.C. § 31-710(4). Idaho Code § 67-2345, however, provides for executive sessions which need not be conducted in public under the following circumstances: [6] (1) Nothing contained in this act shall be construed to prevent, upon a two-thirds (2/3) vote recorded in the minutes of the meeting by individual vote, a governing body of a public agency from holding an executive session during any meeting, after the presiding officer has identified the authorization under this act for the holding of such executive session. An executive session may be held: .... (c) To conduct deliberations concerning labor negotiations or to acquire an interest in real property which is not owned by a public agency; .... (f) To consider and advise its legal representatives in pending litigation or where there is a general public awareness of probable litigation; .... (3) No executive session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. The statutory sections at issue here imply that a majority vote is required in a public meeting before the county may stipulate to entry of judgment. The decision to stipulate to judgment in this case was allegedly made by consensus, but not at a public meeting. Settlement of this litigation is a decision that required a vote for county action. I.C. § 67-2341(1). One of the duties of the county clerk is to [r]ecord the vote of each member on any question upon which there is a division, or at the request of any member present. I.C. § 31-708. Also, a code section referring to the county board of commissioners states that a majority of the board constitutes a quorum, and it would not make sense to define a quorum unless it were necessary for board action. I.C. § 31-706. Finally, as the highway district may defend suits against it in the name of the highway district, I.C. § 40-1310(6), any action carried out in such litigation should require a quorum so that such action in defending suit is truly in the name of the highway district, or county commission board in this case. The executive session exception is inapplicable because (1) no vote was made in a regular meeting to authorize such an executive session and (2) no final action or final decision may be made in such a non-public meeting.