Opinion ID: 1199170
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the district court's jurisdiction to quash the commission's pre-dispute administrative process for inspecting the financial records of a bank believed to have violated the unclaimed property act

Text: It is this court's duty to inquire sua sponte into not only its own jurisdiction but also into that of the court whence the case came. [14] The district court's adjudicative cognizance over Lincoln's quest to defeat the Oklahoma Tax Commission's administrative process is not expressly provided by either constitutional or statutory law. Persuaded as we are to address this issue, we hold not only that the district court has jurisdiction to hear a challenge to the Commission's inspection process lodged for the purpose of enforcing the Unclaimed Property Act but also that the Commission may, if necessary, invoke the district court's adjudicative cognizance to enforce its administrative process for the same purpose. The very nature of this controversy determines whether the district court had jurisdiction to consider Lincoln's challenge to the Commission's inspection process. The Commission's August 26 and September 9, 1986 letters to Lincoln mark the issuance of its own pre-dispute inspection process, which Lincoln sought to quash in the district court. The permanent injunction favoring Lincoln was issued in the absence of a pending adjudicative proceeding before the Commission itself. Had Lincoln sought judicial relief either during or at the conclusion of such an administrative proceeding, the district court would have been without power to declare rights. The terms of 12 O.S. 1981 § 1657 [15] prohibit the district court from giving declaratory relief from any order of the Commission. In case of a final, appealable decision by the Commission, which we do not have here, review would be available in the Supreme Court. [16] Inasmuch as the administrative process issued by the Commission may not be treated as a final order, the terms of 12 O.S. 1981 § 951 [17] are also ineffective to vest the district court with adjudicative cognizance over the Commission's pre-dispute process. Section 951 gives the district court the power to review only final order[s] made ... by any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial functions... . The district court's power to inquire into the underlying basis for the Commission's pre-dispute process lies in Art. 7 § 7, Okl. Const., which vests in the district court unlimited original jurisdiction of all justiciable matters ... and such powers of review of administrative action as may be provided by statute. The district court's unlimited jurisdiction to test the process here in contest is consistent with that court's statutory authority to resolve other disputes under the Uniform Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act. For example, the terms of 60 O.S. 1981 § 676 [18] expressly authorize the district court to review decisions (or failures to act) by the Commission regarding a person's claim to recover property that had been presumed abandoned. The district court's involvement in disputes arising under the Unclaimed Property Act is made manifest also by the provisions of 60 O.S. 1981 § 679, [19] which require the Commission, when seeking to compel the holder's delivery of abandoned property, to bring an action in a court of appropriate jurisdiction [, i.e., the district court]. The terms of 75 O.S. 1981 § 315 [20] of the Administrative Procedures Act [21] confer upon the district court adjudicative cognizance to review the issuance of process by many state agencies. Although the Oklahoma Tax Commission is not required to comply with this section, [22] the due process standards embodied in the Administrative Procedures Act apply to all state agencies, including the Commission. [23] As a matter of state due process within the meaning of Art. 2 § 7, Okl. Const., [24] and in conformity to the equal-access-to-courts mandate of Art. 2 § 6, Okl. Const., [25] we hold that the district court has adjudicative cognizance either to test the legal efficacy of process issued by the Commission for a pre-dispute, unclaimed property investigation or, if necessary, to enforce that process. The district court's power to compel the release of documents for inspection and its power to order them withheld are concomitant. [26]