Court Opinion

ID: 9600476
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:27:37.118974+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:52.766672
License: Public Domain

BRIGHTMIRE, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
I agree with the idea expressed in the court’s opinion that if protest funds are put out at interest by the county treasurer, the interest earned should follow the deposited principal. For this same reason I disagree with a recent opinion handed down by division 2 of this court1 holding that Oklahoma Nitrogen Co. — the protesting taxpayer which deposited the fund forming the subject matter of the present lawsuit — was not entitled to receive interest on the amount it was refunded because of the decision in the early case of Eaton v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry., 122 Okl. 143, 251 P. 1032 (1925). Eaton is clearly distinguishable from the situation facing the court in both the Oklahoma Nitrogen case and here, in that the treasurer in Eaton did not invest the protest money in an interest bearing account. Thus, insofar as the protesting taxpayer in Eaton sought to obtain interest bn the protest fund payable with tax money, the 1925 decision was entirely correct.
*332Here, however, the issue is significantly different. The protest fund did draw interest. Since Oklahoma Nitrogen did not get the interest that I think it was entitled to, the money it should have received retained, I would hold, its interest characteristic and became subject to allocation as such, per provisions of 70 O.S.1981 § 691. Under these circumstances, it seems to me, the school districts are entitled not only to 80 percent or so of the interest earned by their apportioned shares, but they are entitled to the rest of it under the general fund statutes relating to interest earmarking for school districts.
I would affirm the trial court judgment.

. Oklahoma Nitrogen Co. v. Lucas, No. 57,478 (Okl.App., Div II April 5, 1983).