Court Opinion

ID: 9697834
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:32:54.909357+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:35.797545
License: Public Domain

TEIGEN, Chief Justice
(specially concurring).
I agree to a dismissal of the action but for different reasons than those stated by the majority. The plaintiffs, by this action, seek a declaratory judgment under the provisions of Chapter 32-23, N.D.C.C. The plaintiffs seek judgment, declaring that Section 15-40-15, as amended in 1965, applies in their case. It provides:
“The superintendent of public instruction may enter into reciprocal agreements with the state education agencies or officers of bordering states in regard to the attendance of elementary and high school pupils in a bordering state and payments from the county equalization fund for high school and elementary students attending public schools in a bordering state and payments from the county equalization fund for high school and elementary students attending public schools in a bordering state. Such agreements may provide for the payment from the county equalization fund for 'students from North Dakota attending schools in adjoining states in sums equal, on a per student basis, to payments from the county equalization fund received by North Dakota schools. The superintendent of public instruction by certificate to the department of accounts and purchases may authorize such payments, from the appropriation for state school aid to the county equalization fund, to schools in adjoining states for the attendance of such high school and elementary students. The payment by the district of residence for each student shall not exceed the payments established by reciprocal agreement less the amounts otherwise paid for such student under the provisions of this chapter. The department of accounts and purchases, within the limits of legislative appropriation, shall ma'ke such payments tp the appropriate public school, school district or agency of the adjoining state. Such reciprocal agreements may include but shall not be limited to payments for tuition and transportation costs connected with the education of such children in bordering states. Be it further provided that students from areas historically attending school in a hordering state and residing in a district annexed to or reorganized with another district or districts within North Dakota shall he permitted to continue attending school in a district in a bordering state.” [Emphasis supplied.]
The italicized part of the above statute was added by amendment in 1965. The remaining part of the statute was reenacted without change. The amendment must be construed in relation to the subject matter of the statute and must be read in a sense which harmonizes it with the subject matter. The original text of the statute was not changed by the addition in 1965. The addition making no change in the original text must be considered as supplemental to the original text but as being related thereto. Its function, it appears to me, is to grant a student attending school in a bordering state permission to continue attending school in the bordering state when, as a result of annexation or reorganization, the school district in which he is residing has been dissolved in whole or in part and annexed to or reorganized with another school district, and there exists a reciprocal agreement providing for the payment of the charges for his attendance at the school in the bordering state. This is the clear import of the statute as amended *159when construed as a whole. The majority has construed the word “historically” as meaning a period of time consisting of more than three years. I do not think the term is used in that sense. I believe it is used in the present tense with reference to past times or previous dealing, as defined in Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, wherein the following definition is given: “in the course of history: in past times or previous dealings.”
In construing statutes we must seek to ascertain the intent of the Legislature and should not adopt a construction that will nullify or defeat the legislative intent. Coulter v. Ramberg, 79 N.D. 208, 55 N.W. 2d 516.
Where language of a statute is of doubtful meaning or adherence to the strict letter. thereof would lead to injustice or absurdity or result in contradictory provisions, the court must ascertain the true meaning thereof. State for the Benefit of Workmen’s Compensation Fund v. E. W. Wylie Co., 79 N.D. 471, 58 N.W.2d 76; Rybnicek v. City of Mandan, N.D., 93 N.W. 2d 650. I agree with the majority that the statute is ambiguous and that the draftsmanship of the supplementary language leaves much to be desired. However, if I accept the construction placed upon it by the majority, that time is measured from some date in the past, it becomes an absurdity and would lead to injustice. When I consider that part of the statute supplemented by amendment in 1965 in the light of the original text of the statute and take into consideration the fact that policy changes may occur as a result of a territory being placed under the jurisdiction of a new and different school board as a result of annexation or reorganization procedure, the intent of the Legislature, in adopting the amendment, becomes clear. I believe it was the intent of the Legislature to permit a student who was attending a particular school to continue attending such school, and that such student should not be subjected to the requirement that he attend another school at the whim of another school board which acquired jurisdiction of the territory in which the student- resides, as a result of annexation or reorganization procedure. Thus, I believe it was the intent of the Legislature to provide that where all or part of the territory of a school district, by annexation or reorganization, becomes a part of another district or of a new district, subject to the jurisdiction and control of another school board, the students residing in such territory who were attending school in a bordering state prior to such annexation or reorganization procedure, are granted permission, by law, to continue attending the same school and that the decision is at the discretion of the student, and not of the school board, provided the reciprocal agreement is in force. In other words, the statute creates a personal privilege to the student which he may exercise under the law. The statute, however, limits the granting of permission to attend schools in a bordering state to those students, residing in a school district which is annexed to or reorganized with another school district or districts, who have a history of having attended such schools. That part of the statute, supplemented by the 1965 amendment, is written in the present tense. The word “historically” adds the time element but does not prescribe a period of time to be measured from a commencement date in the past, but rather has reference to time measured back from the present. The phrase is “historically attending” and should be construed as being used in the present tense, telling of past events. The words “from areas” can have no meaning, as areas do not attend school.
In spite of my disagreement with the reasoning of the majority, I nevertheless conclude that the action must be dismissed. The reason therefor is that the record in this action does not establish that a reciprocal agreement between North Dakota and South Dakota was in existence, as required by the statute to make the amendment applicable. A justiciable issue must be presented where declaratory relief is sought. In Iverson v. Tweeden, N.D., 48 N.W.2d 367; Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Mustad, *16076 N.D. 84, 33 N.W.2d 436; and Langer v. State, 69 N.D. 129, 284 N.W. 238; we quoted with approval the following passage from State ex rel. LaFollette v. Dammann, 220 Wis. 17, 264 N.W. 627, 103 A.L.R. 1089:
“The requisite precedent facts or conditions which the courts generally hold must exist in order that declaratory relief may be obtained may be summarized as follows: (1) there must exist a justiciable controversy; that is to say, a controversy in which a claim of right is asserted against one who has an interest in contesting it; (2) the controversy must be between persons whose interests are adverse; (3) the party seeking declaratory relief must have a legal interest in the controversy, that is to say, a legally protectible interest; and (4) the issue involved in the controversy must be ripe for judicial determination.”
The plaintiffs having failed to establish that a reciprocal agreement was in existence, it appears to me that to render a decision on the question presented may result in an advisory opinion, contrary to the objects and purposes of the Declaratory Judgments Act. Langer v. State, 69 N.D. 129, 284 N.W. 238; Asbury Hospital v. Cass County, 72 N.D. 359, 7 N.W.2d 438; Ginakes v. Johnson, 75 N.D. 164, 26 N.W. 2d 368; Iverson v. Tweeden, N.D., 48 N.W.2d 367; Park District City of Fargo v. City of Fargo, N.D., 129 N.W.2d 828.