Court Opinion

ID: 9665786
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 00:57:11.746766+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:19.014102
License: Public Domain

Jim Hannah, Chief Justice, concurring in part, dissenting in part. I concur in part and dissent in part. Mike Wilson appeals from orders entered granting summary judgment in favor of Cleburne County, Jacksonville Museum of Military History, City of Jacksonville, Reed’s Bridge Preservation Society, and City of Bigelow (local entities). Because the circuit court never acquired jurisdiction of the local entities, the grants of summary judgment are null and void. The circuit court never acquired jurisdiction over the local entities because the pleadings ostensibly adding them make no claim for relief against them. Wilson states clearly that he has no cause of action against these entities, and that he seeks no relief against them.1 A pleading that includes no claim for relief against a party is not a complaint as to that party. It is void. It does not invoke the jurisdiction of the trial court as to that party. A pleading requesting relief is necessary in a legal action or proceeding in order to confer jurisdiction over the parties so that a legally binding determination of the claim or controversy can be made. 61A Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 3 (2006); see also In re Tinn, 84 P. 152 (Cal. 1906), overruled on other grounds in Olivera v. Grace, 122 P.2d 564 (Cal. 1942); Hightower v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Sacramento, 48 Cal. Rptr. 2d 420, 425 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006). Unless a complaint or other pleading is filed against a party, a judgment of a court is void and subject to collateral attack, even though it has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the dispute. 61A Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 3. There must be a cause to be heard against a party before there is jurisdiction. Tinn, supra. In this case, there was no cause pled against the local entities. They were never subject to the jurisdiction of the circuit court and any action taken by them or by the court with respect to them is null and void. Additionally, even if the local entities had been properly added to the action, they were not proper parties. Wilson’s complaint alleges a violation of article 16, § 13 of the Arkansas Constitution and seeks to enjoin Richard Weiss, as Director of the Department of Finance Administration; Jim Wood, as State Auditor; and Gus Wingfield, as State Treasurer, from disbursing funds. The proper parties to an illegal-exaction suit are the citizen who files the complaint and the governmental entity to be enjoined. See Worth v. City of Rogers, 351 Ark. 183, 89 S.W.3d 875 (2002). The purpose of art. 16, § 13 is to provide a means by which taxpayers can collectively resist illegal taxation. Martin v. Couey Chrysler Plymouth, Inc., 308 Ark. 325, 824 S.W.2d 832 (1992). I find no case where an illegal-exaction lawsuit was used to provide a forum for intended recipients of illegally-exacted taxes to fight for their share of the alleged illegal taxes. They have no standing. Also, the majority lays out a history of Amendment 14 and its purposes. I agree with the majority that under Amendment 14, this court has a duty to determine whether an act of the General Assembly is unconstitutional because it is special or local. The decision in Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803), made clear the duty of courts to determine whether the acts of the legislature are constitutional.2 Wells v. Riviere, 269 Ark. 156, 599 S.W.2d 375 (1980). Just as the General Assembly is under a duty to carry out its duty in enacting the laws, it is our duty to interpret those laws, and it is the duty of the executive branch to enforce them. Each of the three branches are of equal dignity. In re Supreme Court License Fees, 251 Ark. 800, 483 S.W.2d 174 (1972) (per curiam). Our form of representative government is dependent upon each coordinate branch of government complying with its constitutional obligations and its constitutional restraints. If it were not for the lack of jurisdiction, I would agree with the result reached by the majority. To date, the only valid decision made by the circuit court on summary judgment is entry in Wilson’s favor on Act 837. That decision has not been appealed. Upon remand, an issue should be who is a proper party to this illegal-exaction suit.   In Wilson’s Amended Complaint, we find the following critical language: “Plaintiff further states that he has no present cause of action against the additional defendants and seeks no relief against them.” In his Second Amended Complaint, Wilson states that he is again adding parties “as directed by the Court.” He reaffirms his original complaint which was directed solely at Richard Weiss, as Director of the Department of Finance & Administration, Jim Wood as State Auditor, and Gus Wingfield as State Treasurer.    The acts of the General Assembly are presumed constitutional. Holloway v. Pine Ridge Addition Residential Prop. Owners, 332 Ark. 450, 966 S.W.2d 241 (1998); Hickenbottom v. McCain, 207 Ark. 485, 181 S.W.2d 226 (1944).