Opinion ID: 2599701
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Mandamus is Available to Compel Compliance With Duty

Text: A party may seek a writ of mandate to compel the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins, as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station.... (Code Civ. Proa, § 1085, subd. (a).) In order to obtain writ relief, a party must establish `(1) A clear, present and usually ministerial duty on the part of the respondent ...; and (2) a clear, present and beneficial right in the petitioner to the performance of that duty....' ( Santa Clara County Counsel Attys. Assn. v. Woodside (1994) 7 Cal.4th 525, 539-540, 28 Cal.Rptr.2d 617, 869 P.2d 1142 ( Woodside ).) It is undisputed that defendants had a duty to correctly calculate and distribute the tax revenue. Nor can it be disputed that plaintiffs had a beneficial right in defendants doing so. It follows then that mandamus provides an appropriate remedy for defendants' failure to comply with their statutory duty. Courts have frequently found mandamus to be available in cases similar to the one at bar, where one public entity seeks to force another to release funds in accordance with a statutory duty. In Lackner, the county sued the director of the state agency administering the Medi-Cal program seeking to force the release of reimbursement monies allegedly withheld in violation of statute. The state agency argued that the county's failure to properly present a tort claim for damages prevented the trial court from awarding payment of the funds. ( Lackner, supra, 97 Cal. App.3d at pp. 586-587, 159 Cal.Rptr. 1.) Rejecting the state agency's contention, the Court of Appeal explained that [a]n action in traditional mandamus, which seeks an order compelling an official to perform a mandatory duty, is not an action against the state for money, even though the result compels the public official to release money wrongfully detained. ( Id. at p. 587, 159 Cal.Rptr. 1; accord, County of Los Angeles v. Riley (1942) 20 Cal.2d 652, 128 P.2d 537 [mandamus appropriate to force state to recalculate credit for aid payments]; County of L.A. v. State Dept. Pub. Health (1958) 158 Cal.App.2d 425, 322 P.2d 968 [mandamus appropriate to force state agency to release tuberculosis subsidies].) [9] Defendants argue that being forced to correct their mistake and pay plaintiffs misallocated revenue would inject uncertainty in the public fisc and have a detrimental impact. It appears elementary that courts may not frustrate the creation of a statutory duty by refusing to enforce it through the normal judicial means. What public policy reasons there are against enforcement of a statutory duty are reasons against the creation of the duty ab initio, and should be addressed to the Legislature. ( Woodside, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 540, 28 Cal.Rptr.2d 617, 869 P.2d 1142.) Indeed, as both parties note, the Legislature has on occasion enacted statutes forgiving counties' misallocations in exchange for prospective compliance. (E.g., Rev. & Tax.Code, §§ 96.18, 96.19, 96.27.) Defendants may similarly seek the Legislature's intervention here; courts, however, cannot refuse to enforce the statutory duty simply because of an alleged hardship it would pose to a county. Additionally, several provisions of the Revenue and Taxation Code appear to limit any hardship. Revenue and Taxation Code section 96.1, subdivision (c)(3), curtails the amount County would have to pay in a single year by providing that if it is determined that ... a reallocation is required for previous fiscal years, the cumulative reallocation or adjustment may not exceed 1 percent of the total amount levied at a 1 percent rate of the current year's original secured tax roll. The reallocation shall be completed in equal increments within the following three fiscal years. . . . [10] Revenue and Taxation Code section 4831, subdivision (a), contains a four-year statute of limitations for the correction of the rolls. Defendants also have available to them any appropriate defenses such as laches and unclean hands. (8 Witkin, Cal. Procedure, supra, Extraordinary Writs, §§ 148, 153, pp. 943-946, 950-951.) We also note plaintiffs added as named defendants the taxing entities that received misallocated revenue and which continue to be parties in this action. Should plaintiffs succeed, County's obligation may be offset by voluntary repayment by the taxing entities or by direct recourse against them by plaintiffs or by County itself. [11] Alternatively, as suggested during oral argument, County may correct the tax rolls that resulted in overpayments to the entities and explore offsetting future payments to recover any amounts now owed to plaintiffs. (See Rev. & Tax. Code, § 4831; Health & Saf.Code, § 33677.) Whatever County does, it is clear that what it may not do is refuse to comply with its statutory duty to correctly allocate and distribute revenue owed to plaintiffs. Accordingly, we conclude mandamus may issue to compel a county to comply with its duty to calculate and distribute tax revenue. In light of our holding, we need not resolve whether plaintiffs could have maintained claims for quasi-contract or constructive trust had mandamus not been available.