Opinion ID: 2449412
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: do the jefferson county fiscal court and highbaugh enterprises (one of the property owners in hurstbourne) have standing to question the legality of the contract?

Text: The remonstrance actions of Hurstbourne and Oxmoor were filed in March of 1979. In each case the Jefferson County Fiscal Court was joined as a party defendant. Oxmoor and the City of Louisville tendered an agreed judgment based on the contract in question here. The Fiscal Court and Highbaugh Enterprises challenged the entry of the judgment because of the alleged illegality of the contract. It is argued that neither the Fiscal Court nor Highbaugh has standing in these remonstrance actions. We do not agree. The Fiscal Court was joined as a party because of the mandate of KRS 81.290(2) which provided, Whenever the proposed annexation . . . shall be protested. . . the Fiscal Court of such county shall be made a party to such a protest suit.  (emphasis added). It is true that this statute was repealed, effective July 15, 1980. However, the appearance of the Fiscal Court as a party was mandated as of the time the actions were filed in 1979 and the concomitant rights of the Fiscal Court to appear and raise any and all questions concerning the annexation were vested then. The subsequent repeal of the statute did not change these rights. We believe the statute is dispositive of the question of standing of the Fiscal Court. Highbaugh Enterprises is not only a remonstrant in the Hurstbourne suit, but also a taxpayer in the present City of Louisville. We believe Highbaugh has an absolute right, as a taxpayer of the City, to question the legality of a contract which would allegedly require city officials to administer the tax laws in an unconstitutional manner. Kelley v. City of Ashland, Ky., 562 S.W.2d 312 (1978); Russman v. Luckett, Ky. 391 S.W.2d 694 (1965).