Court Opinion

ID: 9748459
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 16:02:21.150736+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:35.515099
License: Public Domain

KELLER, Justice,
concurring.
While I agree with the majority’s conclusion regarding the constitutionality of the City of Paintsville’s occupational license tax and the General Assembly’s legislative enactments which delegate taxation power to cities and counties, I write separately to express my opinion that Preston did not follow the notification procedures outlined in Kentucky’s Declaratory Judgments Act by failing to notify the Attorney General when he sought appellate review of the *796Johnson Circuit Court ruling. Accordingly, while I agree with the majority’s decision to address the merits of Preston’s claim because of the significance of this issue, I believe it is important to note that either this Court or the Court of Appeals could properly have declined to review this issue because of Preston’s failure to follow the notice requirements of KRS 418.075(2).
KRS 418.075 requires that the Attorney General be notified in cases such as the one before us where the plaintiff seeks declaratory relief:
When declaratory relief is sought, all persons shall be made parties who have or claim any interest which would be affected by the declaration, and no declaration shall prejudice the rights of persons not parties to the proceeding.
(1) In any proceeding which involves the validity of a statute, the Attorney General of the state shall, before judgment is entered, be served with a copy of the petition, and shall be entitled to be heard, and if the ordinance or franchise is alleged to be unconstitutional, the Attorney General of the state shall also be served with a copy of the petition and be entitled to be heard.
(¾) In any appeal to the Kentucky Court of Appeals or Supreme Court or the federal appellate cowls in any forum which involves the constitutional validity of a statute, the Attorney General shall, before the filing of the appellant’s brief, be served with a copy of the pleading, paper, or other documents which initiate the appeal in the appellate forum. This notice shall specify the challenged statute and the nature of the alleged constitutional defect.
(3) The Attorney General shall notify the Legislative Research Commission of:
(a) The receipt of a petition and the nature of any proceedings involving the validity of a statute; and
(b) The entering of a final judgment in those proceedings, if the Attorney General is a party to that action.1
Until July 15, 1996, KRS 418.075 required only that the Attorney General be served with a copy of the petition filed in the trial court, and this requirement is now codified at KRS 418.075(1). The 1996 General Assembly, however, added the language now codified at KRS 418.075(2).2
Preston complied with the KRS 418.075(1) notice requirement, but did not serve upon the Attorney General a copy of the notice of appeal or motion for discretionary review as required by KRS 418.075(2).
Although Preston purports to challenge the validity of a Paintsville taxation ordinance, his argument quickly blossoms beyond its initial label into a constitutional criticism of Kentucky’s statutory taxation scheme. The General Assembly unquestionably granted Paintsville the power to levy an occupational tax in KRS 92.281. Preston’s constitutional challenge argues that KRS 68.197(4) and KRS 67.083(2) violate his right to equal protection under the law, since he, as a citizen of a county having a population of less than 30,000, is denied a tax credit which is granted to citizens of counties having populations of 30,000 or more. Preston thus argues against the validity of the Paintsville ordinance because the statutory grants of authority under which Paintsville enacted the ordinance are arbitrary and unconstitutional. As Preston’s argument against the ordinance is inexorably intertwined with his constitutional objections to the General Assembly’s delegations of taxation power, the issue on this appeal certainly “involves the constitutional validity of a statute” and Preston’s decision to seek appellate review of the decision of the Johnson Circuit Court triggers the notice requirement within KRS 418.075(2).
Although this Court has not yet had an opportunity to address the effect of a failure to abide by the procedural notice requirements of this subsection, we have required strict compliance with respect to the other requirements of KRS 418.075. *797In Maney v. Mary Chiles Hospital,3 we recognized the important policy considerations supporting this requirement4 and held: “It is our view that KRS 418.075 is mandatory and that strict enforcement of the statute will eliminate the procedural uncertainty.”5 In Adventist Health Systems v. Trade,6 this Court relied upon Maney and declined to consider a constitutional issue on appeal because of the litigant’s failure to abide by the notice requirements of KRS 418.075:
Dr. Peasley has argued that the provisions of KRS 311.377 violate the Kentucky Constitution. However, Dr. Peas-ley failed to give notice to the Attorney General of the pendency of his constitutional challenge in violation of KRS 418.075 and Civil Rule 24.03 in either the Court of Appeals or this Court. Since the original action was filed in the Court of Appeals, it is considered the “trial court” for the purpose of applying the procedural mandate of Maney v. Mary Chiles Hosp. In Maney, we held that the requirements of KRS 418.075 are mandatory in order for a court to consider the constitutionality of a statute and that strict enforcement of the statute will eliminate procedural uncertainty. Accordingly, we decline to consider that issue.7
I see no reason for us to interpret KRS 418.075(2) differently from KRS 418.075(1). The General Assembly has made a policy decision that the Attorney General be informed when litigants in declaratory judgment actions seek further appellate review, and this Court may enforce this requirement by declining to consider constitutional issues presented without proper notice. While the Attorney General may exercise discretion to intervene only in those cases involving questions of statewide concern, the full extent of a constitutional claim may not be apparent from the face of a petition. In this case, a purported challenge to a local ordinance actually questions the constitutionality of a number of statutes delegating taxation power to cities and counties. KRS 418.075(2) allows the office of the Attorney General an opportunity to reassess, with more complete knowledge of the issues involved on appeal, its prior determination regarding involvement in a lawsuit. If, after reviewing a notice of appeal, the office of the Attorney General wishes to represent the interests of the citizens of Kentucky, it may seek to file a brief as amicus curiae.8 As Preston failed to meet the notice requirements of KRS 418.075(2), either this Court or the Court of Appeals could have dismissed this appeal and declined to address the issue involved.
As stated previously, I agree with the majority’s decision to address the merits of the constitutional issue in this case, and I believe counsel for the appellee in this case aptly defended the constitutionality of both the Paintsville ordinance and the General Assembly’s taxation delegation statutes. I write separately in concurrence primarily to remind the bench and bar of the 1996 amendment to KRS 418.075, and to suggest that future failures to comply with the *798notice requirement in KRS 418.075(2) may bar review of constitutional challenges to Kentucky statutes.
GRAVES and JOHNSTONE, JJ., join this concurring opinion.

. KRS 418.075 (emphasis added).

. 1996 Ky. Acts, ch. 202, § 2 (effective July 15, 1996).

. Ky., 785 S.W.2d 480 (1990).

. See, Id. at 481:
[W]e are convinced that there is a compelling public purpose to be served by the notification rule. The language of the statute and rule evinces a strong public policy in favor of notification to the Attorney General whenever the constitutionality of a statute is placed in issue ....
Among the purposes underlying this statute is the right of the people, by the chief law officer, to be heard on matters affecting the validity of duly enacted statutes. KRS 15.020. Likewise, the prevention of collusive, non-adversarial proceedings between or among litigants which might result in the invalidation of state law is a matter of public interest. It is in the interest of the people to afford the Attorney General an opportunity to participate on their behalf, whether it is to argue for or against the validity of a statute.

. Id. at 482.

. Ky., 880 S.W.2d 539 (1994).

. Id. at 542 (citations deleted and emphasis added).

. See CR 76.12(7).