Opinion ID: 1216691
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The 1980-81 Contract.

Text: The uncertainty that led to this action arises from the Court of Appeals' opinion in Board of Education v. Jennings . Each of the three judges on the panel stated their views on the 1980-81 contract. The opinion of Judge Neal found NMSA 1978, Section 22-10-11(A), requiring school personnel employment contracts to be on forms approved by the state, to be directory only. The fact that Jennings' contract was not on such a form, therefore, did not invalidate the contract. Judge Neal concluded that there was a valid and binding contract for 1980-81. Board of Education v. Jennings, 98 N.M. at 610, 651 P.2d at 1045. By way of special concurrence, Judge Sutin stated: The local board contends the state board erred in reversing the local school board for the year 1980-81 because no contract had been executed between the local school board and Jennings. Jennings claims compensation for the 1980-81 school year. The decision of the state board was silent on this issue. They are not before this Court. Id. at 613, 651 P.2d at 1048. The dissenting opinion of Judge Donnelly confronted the issue of the 1980-81 contract as follows: The written decision of the State Board also fails to address this. Although there is a finding of fact on this point (Finding No. 2), there is no board conclusion based on this finding. Section 22-10-20(I) supra, requires that the State Board's decision  shall contain ... conclusions of law. Id. at 615, 651 P.2d at 1050 (emphasis in original). The issue of the 1980-81 contract's validity was never addressed by a majority of the Court of Appeals. Therefore, whether there was a valid contract for 1980-81 remained open to interpretation. The district court determined that the issue had not been decided and ruled that the 1980-81 contract was valid and binding. We uphold the district court's determination.