Court Opinion

ID: 9755529
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 20:41:39.435666+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:08.632706
License: Public Domain

Tom Glaze, Justice, concurring. I concur. This case is easily summarized. The City of Haskell was illegally utilizing its equipment on privately owned property for other than city purposes. Brad Cotten lodged an objection to this practice, which led the Mayor of Haskell to modify its practice by adopting a written policy to allow private individuals to use the city’s equipment for private purposes but at specified hourly rates. Cotten continued his objection to these practices, but to no avail. As a consequence, he filed this lawsuit against the city officials, alleging the described private use of city equipment was an illegal exaction which should be enjoined. He further requested attorney’s fees for having to bring this litigation. The city answered, denying Cotten’s assertion that an illegal exaction existed or that Cotten was entitled to attorney’s fees. Twelve days after Cotten filed his suit, the city filed a motion to dismiss, stating it had rescinded its policies allowing city equipment to be used on private property; the city affirmatively claimed such equipment would no longer be used for anything other than for the benefit of the city. The city also asserted Cotten’s suit was now moot and no statutory authority existed that would allow Cotten to be awarded attorney’s fees. The chancellor agreed with the city on both issues, and our court agrees on appeal. I agree with the majority opinion on the mootness issue; however, the majority opinion brushes aside the attorney’s fee issue too easily, especially since at oral argument, Cotten’s counsel was asked whether the decision in Lake View Sch. Dist. No. 25 v. Huckabee, 340 Ark. 481, 10 S.W.3d 892 (2000), would allow attorney’s fees in a case like the one now before us. Until the Lake View holding, this court allowed attorney’s fees only in two situations: (1) when attorney’s fees are authorized by statute (commonly labeled the American Rule), and (2) in illegal-exaction cases where a class action is sought and a common fund is established. In the present case, neither situation exists. However, Cotten argues he did not seek a common fund because no illegal fees or taxes would be refunded. Instead, taxpayers merely benefit-ted because Cotten’s action was the reason the city terminated its illegal use of city equipment. In fact, the city eventually conceded the practice was illegal, and for that reason, Cotten submits he should not have to bear the sole cost of the litigation which stopped this illegal practice. In the Lake View decision, this court upheld the award of attorney’s fees in yet a third situation, and in doing so, relied on Millsap v. Lane, 288 Ark. 439, 706 S.W.2d 378 (1986). In Millsap, the court allowed attorney’s fees when no statute authorized such fees; nor was an illegal-exaction action against a governmental entity at issue. Rather, the Millsap court allowed attorney’s fees to the plaintiffs in an action involving private shareholders and their business corporation which had received some economic benefit as a result of the litigation. Our court in Lake View employed the “economic benefit” concept announced in Millsap and held attorney’s fees should be allowed the Lake View School District No. 25 because there was no question but that a substantial economic benefit had accrued to the poorer school districts as a direct result of Lake View’s efforts. Lake View Sch. Dist. No. 25, 340 Ark at 495. I dissented, being unconvinced that Millsap should be extended to illegal-exaction cases where no class action and common fond had been established. Id. at 501-504. It is my continued opinion that an act of the General Assembly (or constitutional provision) must be enacted in order for attorney’s fees to be authorized or awarded in cases like the one before us. We said as much in Hamilton v. Villines, 323 Ark. 492, 915 S.W.2d 271 (1996) (the General Assembly may wish to extend the language of Ark. Code Ann. § 26-35-902 (Supp. 1995)). Certainly, a case can be made for allowing attorney’s fees where a citizen’s action has been brought to terminate illegal practices by governmental officials; however, there are opposing considerations as well. For example, in a case like the one before us, authorizing such fees undoubtedly will be monetarily detrimental to the taxpayers, since any payment of attorney’s fees will necessarily be paid by the taxpayers, who purportedly are said to benefit by the citizen’s (here Cotten’s) action. For the reasons discussed, I agree there is no legal basis upon which attorney’s fees can be awarded Cotten. Cotten will have to be content with the unremunerated satisfaction that he was responsible for ending the city’s illegal use of its equipment. HANNAH, J., joins this concurring opinion.