Court Opinion

ID: 9632545
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 11:18:37.743036+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:08:18.168399
License: Public Domain

OAKS, Justice
(concurring and dissenting):
I concur in the opinion affirming the denial of relief on the County Treasurer’s counterclaim for the excess expenses of collection. I also concur in those portions of the opinion concluding (1) that the County •Treasurer had not substantially complied with the statutory requirements, (2) that the County Treasurer holds the taxes he collects and their earnings in trust for the entities for whom he collected them,1 and (3) that governmental immunity is no defense to.Granite School District’s suit for relief in equity. I express no opinion on the appropriateness of the majority’s applying its rule prospectively.
*1038I dissent from the denial of relief to Granite on its equitable claim.2 The fact that Granite did not prove how much of its money the County Treasurer held on any given date is irrelevant. Granite made a prima facie showing that the County Treasurer had held some of its moneys in trust for periods exceeding the thirty-day statutory limit and had misappropriated the earnings obtained for those periods. This is evident from the fact that over 98% of taxes have been collected by November 30 of each year but considerably less than 98% of the taxes have been paid over by 30 days after that time. The beneficiary having made a prima facie showing of breach of trust, the trustee had the burden of accounting for its administration of the trust funds. By that means, the burden falls to the party in possession of the information, and all doubts will be resolved against it. These are well-settled principles of trust law. E.g., Malcolmson v. Goodhue County National Bank, 198 Minn. 562, 272 N.W. 157 (1936); G. Bogert, Trusts & Trustees § 972 (2d ed. 1962); Restatement (Second) of Trusts § 172 (1959). These principles should apply to all fiduciaries.
The County Treasurer is obliged to account to the Granite School District for all earnings it has obtained on tax funds held in trust for Granite beyond the statutory period.3 This relief is essential to the integrity of legislative directions on how funds raised by various taxes shall be expended. I would therefore remand with instructions to enter a decree against the County and its Treasurer on the issue of liability and to proceed to an accounting to determine the amount of damages.
HALL, C.J., concurs in the concurring and dissenting opinion of OAKS, J.

. In addition to the reasons cited in Justice Howe’s opinion, § 59-I0-66’s reference to moneys “collected for” the school districts and its command that the Treasurer pay the districts their “proportionate share” and “make a final settlement” by a specified time confirm that the school districts own the collections and the Treasurer only holds them in trust.

. I also dissent from the conclusion that Judge Banks could not reconsider the issue of partial liability. The plaintiffs substitution of equitable claims for legal ones surely offered a sufficient basis to reconsider the partial summary judgment on liability since such substitution changed the elements necessary for recovery.

. Only if the funds were actually unproductive would the court apply the statutory or other theoretical rate of interest. In any case, the majority’s references to “interest on overdue debts” are inapposite. Granite’s suit in equity is based on ownership, not debt.