Central Community School Board VS East Baton Rouge Parish School Board and East Baton Rouge Parish Facilities Improvement District
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NUMBER 2008 CA 0036 JfrhvJ L CENTRAL COMMUNITY SCHOOL BOARD VERSUS EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH SCHOOL BOARD EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT Judgment Rendered June 6 2008 the Appealed from Nineteenth Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana Docket Number 557 403 The Honorable Wilson Fields Sheri M Morris Baton Rouge Judge Presiding Counsel for Plaintiffl Appellant LA Central Community James P Dore Counsel for Christopher Dicharry East Baton DefendantslAppellees Rouge Parish School Board East Baton Rouge Parish Facilities Improvement District Jennifer Jones Thomas Baton Rouge LA BEFORE 14i JY I School Board WHIPPLE GUIDRY AND HUGHES JJ I 1 l V1 Ctr t I J J jIQ J O V1 ttYVl j I A O l t I e of MJ 1 ne b 9 WHIPPLE J This matter is before Central Board from mandamus relief in a us on appeal by the Central Community School Board judgment of the trial EBRP denying Central s request for disputes arising from the separation of the public schools in Louisiana from the East Baton Central court For the following reasons we Rouge Parish Public School System affirm in part and reverse in part FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In an the 2006 VIII S Regular Session the Central as a of certain taxes was its proposed own to parish funding and have the authority to elementary LSA R S and was to the statewide election In addition provide to amend Article that for certain effects and granted parishes including the purposes revenues to be submitted By the of the terms the electorate for Regular Session 1 to to matters approval or be held November 7 2006 Act 202 of the 2006 17 66 and 17 66 1 and annual ad valorem secondary schools for submission of the the electors and for related the proposed amendment at school system Act 861 of allow the electorate and the raising of certain local amendment rejection public Community School System in EBRP be regarded and for the support of proposed act to create 13 of the Louisiana Constitution to purposes treated effort for Central provide proposed to enact Community School was for the Central System including its establishment and boundaries for the school board and interim board of control for board method of selection of office powers duties and terms membership apportionment qualifications filling of vacancies compensation responsibilities relative to expenses facilities and property reapportionment of EBRP for effectiveness and for implementation related matters IThese 202 act further specified sections originally enacted as R S redesignated as R S 17 66 and R S 111 authority ofthe were The an Louisiana State Law Institute 2 for the and for that Central would begin the actual 17 65 and R S by 17 1 65 17 66 1 pursuant to the Acts 2006 No statutory revision operation 1 of providing for the education of students within its 2007 and that facilities beginning and other property management all lands that date on and control purposes but located within the 2006 a art VIII to such facilities majority of Louisiana which District EFID renew was 4 EBRP In by 2The tax to 3LSA Const art 13 S 1 l 2 approved the I sales and use tax the EBRP Educational Facilities Improvement Bellingrath C provides area EFm had received voter use tax are the a 3 encompassed four schools located in Central Tanglewood Elementary voters December 11 2006 collecting be levied from 2004 School and shall be that May of 2003 the was was on including the five year dedicated sales and Propositions The the levied both to Upon passage of the constitutional throughout its geographic boundaries Central or used or 9 13 of the Louisiana Constitution permitting amendment Acts 861 and 202 became effective separation to public education Central R S 17 66 F LSA separation of Central from EBRP At the time of the for boundaries of Central managed administered and controlled by the July buildings and improvements EBRP by geographic provide student transportation services amendment of LSA Const on having title vested in the public and subject administration On November 7 jurisdiction in part to which consisted of three stated through 2009 Proposition Central Hills approval High School Central Elementary School No Middle School If a majority of the electors voting on amendment approve it the governor shall proclaim its adoption and it shall become part of this constitution effective twenty days after the The proclamation governor proclaimed the adoption of the amendment by Act 861 on November 20 2006 proposed 4Louisiana Improvement sales and use Revised Statute 33 2740 37 authorized the prescription drugs at retail the use lease or rental consumption consumption of tangible personal property and on sales of 33 2740 37 E The Finance for sales and of Educational parishes including East Baton Rouge to levy and collect a tax not to exceed one percent within the district on all sales excluding food and or creation Districts in certain use Department taxes on for the of East Baton Paris Cityh all taxable and the State of Louisiana goods and services sold Department of Public Safety and the storage for use LSA R S services Rouge is the collection agent parish of East Baton Rouge in the Office of Motor Vehicles is the collection agent for sales and use taxes on motor vehicles and related services sold in the parish of East Baton Rouge The sales and use taxes collected by retailers are remitted to the sales tax collector and the collector remits to the taxing authority in the month appropriate following the taxable transaction 3 1 consisted of and enhancing technology and construction of new classrooms and renovations funding repairs new schools in the 08 a use Compensation which tax was tax for the purpose of for The stated employees A Plan to approved and No Proposition No 2 consisted of 3 consisted of a 41 compensation of teachers and other and purpose of the three use a propositions Improve Facilities Technology Discipline Rouge Parish School System in the East Baton The Tax Plan and discipline Proposition EBRP for the purpose of increasing forth in set were use tax school system use public school system in sales and sales and sales and 51 the Tax Plan and adopted by the EBRP School Board on August 13 1998 provided for the new construction of seven schools including Central Middle School After the separation from EBRP Petition for Writs of Mandamus on Board and the EFID transfer to which 2007 the Central Board filed was within the used for public geographic court order 1 education purposes during boundaries of Central that has that the EBRP School Board transfer thirty not one EBRP School Board from the 2007 City to Central and EFID within the directing been transferred additional buses of similar to facilities located within tax year 4 that proceeds received by the the EBRP School Board taxes received on to to authorize the forward any and all additional behalf of the EBRP School Board and geographic boundaries of Central after July 1 2007 4 n already City Parish and Office of Motor Vehicles after July Parish and the Office of Motor Vehicles proceeds of sales and use use property the 2006 2007 school year geographic boundaries of Central during the 2006 2007 school the EBRP School Board transfer all sales and 1 that the EBRP School 18 398 333 00 of the proceeds of Proposition No 1 quality and condition to those used to transport students the a EBRP School Board and the EFID 2 that the EBRP School Board deliver any and all movable Central 3 against the July 20 2007 requesting that the trial 1 July on to Central 5 that the EBRP School Board transfer of June 30 2007 in equal an amount a to portion of the fund balance existing as the percentage of the total number of students who attended schools within the former EBRP school system during the 2006 2007 school year who resided within the boundaries of the Central school district 6 Central be that Central be awarded all costs of these granted any and all equitable relief as proceedings and 7 that may be awarded in these premises In response EBRP filed Use of and a Exceptions of No Cause of Action Unauthorized Summary Proceeding Improper Cumulation of Actions and Vagueness Ambiguity The matters heard were 2007 after which the trial EBRP s by the trial court rendered oral exceptions and the Central written judgment was signed court in Board s on October 22 and October 23 reasons petition for judgment denying both for mandamus relief conformity with the trial court s oral reasons on November 7 2007 The Central Board 1 The trial court mandate that appeals assigning the following as error erred in the that La R S 39 704 does not approved by the voters for determining special tax construction of Central Middle School purpose 2 be used for the specific approved by the voters The trial court erred in concluding that La R S 17 66 does not mandate the transfer of all movable property for public education purposes but located within the geographic boundaries of the Central Community School System during the 2006 2007 school year 3 The trial to the Central School Board on July 1 2007 erred in concluding that La R S 17 66 does not mandate the EBRP Board to transfer all buses used to provide student transportation to facilities in Central School System court during the 2006 2007 school year 4 The trial court erred in determining that La R S 17 66 does not mandate the EBRP Board the transfer of sales and use taxes collected in Central School System received after July 1 2007 to the Central School Board 5 A 5 The trial court erred in determining that funds accumulated EBRP Board for by the 1 public education purposes prior to July 2007 to be equitably divided among public property required two school boards providing public education in the are not the jurisdiction from which the funds EBRP answered the their were appeal contending that the trial No Cause of Action Exceptions of collected court erred in Unauthorized Use of denying Summary a Proceeding Improper Cumulation of Actions and Vagueness and Ambiguity DISCUSSION A writ of mandamus may be directed to performance of ministerial a cause reviewing the mandamus is cases compel the LSA C C P where the law involved in delay to provides 3863 art no relief obtaining ordinary relief by may LSA C C P art 3862 injustice In where the or means public officer duty required by law Mandamus may be issued in all ordinary a an Central Board claims s extraordinary remedy which must with the start we be used by premise that courts sparingly only to compel action that is clearly provided by law but only where it is the only available would remedy cause or where injustice 14 App 1st Cir 2 692 So 2d 455 97 Allen to discretion however La App 1st Cir 22 9 06 must be exercised The performance of act that slight 5 5 06 937 So 2d 392 clear and performed Sund never of any other remedy an 2d 219 221 Further mandamus is to 97 0599 La matters 18 4 La 97 in which discretion remedy of mandamus is not contains any element of St Helena Parish School Board 2005 2473 v 935 So specific legal right It 153 writ denied Moreover mandamus will not lie in command use St Tammany Parish Police JUry 96 0938 v 690 So 2d 150 and evaluation of evidence available delay occasioned by the be enforced issues in doubtful cases Tangipahoa 2007 0574 La App 15t Cir 3 26 08 6 writ denied to or be used a 2006 1392 La only when there is duty which ought Citv of Hammond So 2d v to a be Parish of Assignment In its petition of Error Number One for writ of mandamus the Central Board sought EBRP School Board and the EFID transfer to the Central Board in 1 Tax Plan that the EFID proceeds from the Proposition No of on April 1 2004 in the geographic system a new as proposed in the 2005 2006 Central Middle School In this the trial special court tax finding s i used for the specific purpose that voters now budget of the the 18 398 333 00 began collection comprises the Central school EFID for the construction of assignment the Central Board contends that that LSA R S e approved by the area to have 39 704 does not mandate that the for construction of Central Middle School be approved by the voters is Louisiana Revised Statute 39 704 provides as error follows The proceeds of any special tax shall constitute a trust fund to be used exclusively for the objects and purposes for which the tax was levied The records of the taxing authority shall clearly reflect the objects and purposes for which the proceeds of the tax are used A review of the EFID the 51 sales and technology the public Board trial s use tax construction of Proposition is for new No 1 reveals that in funding repairs and renovations enhancing classrooms and construction of school system in East Baton Rouge Parish In as new schools in rejecting the Central request for mandamus relief ordering the transfer of the court ruled the purpose of sum tax monies the follows The Central Community School System is asking for the monies to be transferred to build the Central Middle School Also in Proposition One there was a plan or a schedule if you will in terms of when that particular school was suppose d to be built and how much money was suppose d Central Community School completion of this tax Parish School System plan to be allocated per year However the System on July 1 2007 prior to the separated from the East Baton Rouge So the question becomes whether or money should be transferred to them to build that school looking that And in proposition what the voters passed in that proposition it explains it says a plan to improve facilities technology discipline and compensation in the East Baton Rouge School System The Central Middle School is no longer in the East Baton Rouge Parish School System as of July 1 2007 So it is this court s at the not as 7 ruling that the 18 398 333 00 that the Central Community School System is asking for is not money to be transferred to the Central Community School System due to the fact that they were no longer a part of East Baton Rouge Parish School System And in keeping with Proposition were dedicated improve One the argument was made that those monies But the monies were dedicated for a plan to facilities and East Baton and the construction approved construction of a new undisputed that projects listed the electorate within in the Tax Plan and that Central Middle School and renovations Bellingrath Hills at Tanglewood Elementary Schools were provided for in the Tax Plan the Central Board argues that because Acts 861 and 202 did boundaries ofthe EFID the taxes levied used for the exclusively LSA R S 39 704 the proceeds objects of the tax and purposes for which the to for the construction of a new amount 2006 had the EBRP School Board not levied was See obligated to use transfer to to EBRP Director of Facilities Central Middle School would have of 18 398 333 00 in halted the Central Board concludes that it is entitled to tax the enactment of Acts 861 and 202 been awarded for the encumbered andor EFID change the not for the benefit of the entire EFID in accordance with the Citing the testimony of Robert Cooper the a contract Further by the EFID constitute a trust fund to be Thus the Central Board contends the EFID is budgets adopted prior that in compensation Rouge Parish The Central Board contends that it is the EFID and technology discipline a September of project in July of 2006 the writ of mandamus directing EBRP the Central Board the funds that would have been encumbered for the construction of Central Middle School prior to July 1 2007 plus interest Citing the stated assisting the renovations East Baton East Baton purpose identified in Rouge Parish School Board and construction of Rouge Parish Proposition new schools in the EBRP counters that 8 in No 1 which is funding repairs and public school system in Proposition No 1 does not reflect that Central would the year tax and that the citizens of EBRP did not vote to give Central 18 000 000 00 Board build Rouge Parish EFID is School Board and is relies to build the purposes of LSA R S nor B 37 2740 37 2740 B coterminous with the projects and they authorize Further EBRP in part l 2 the EBRP School that the East Baton notes of all of the members of the EBRP which provides school boards of the a which respective school district budgets to that an In support EBRP EFID is created for respective school districts and provides that EFm authorizes the EBRP School Board Plan did represented by the EBRP School Board assisting the 33 a school comprised LSA R S 33 on a school for Central a separate school system pnor to completion of the five to establish an EFID s boundaries are EBRP also contends that the make decisions regarding Thus EBRP contends it has the discretion any provisions of the Tax Plan to accommodate unforeseen events the Tax to modify emergencies and variations in estimates However according minor in relation to separation of Central to the Tax Plan the intent of the Plan was an unforeseen such modification must be Any While EBRP argues that the that allowed for modification of event the Plan the Central Board contends that the total elimination of construction of a school is not a minor that it has discretion to modification of the Plan put the project EBRP argues its decisions to on reduce the ultimately discontinue the project which Committee with no objection As noted above the by LSA R S 39 704 Tax were hold 5 or In response EBRP contends cancel the project budget for Central Middle School and were within EBRP both reviewed s by the Oversight rightful authority spending of the proceeds of a special revenues As such obtained from a special tax tax must is governed be used for 5With reference to EBRP s argument that Central s separation from EBRP was an unforeseen event we note that prior to the passage ofActs 861 and 202 in 2006 Central had previously attempted on two occasions in 2001 and again in 2004 albeit unsuccessfully to pass legislation to create a separate Central Community School System 9 no other purpose than that stated in the proposition submitted the electorate App 2nd special 956 So 2d 121 v submitted and to construction of 127 inconsistent evaluation recognize of evidence Mandamus may 6See 483 1067 tax must Baker which only issue La 1959 197 So cannot be dedicated Owners 754 759 intermingled Mindful of the precept that be used for increment prohibited financing no now not are seemingly intemally discretion compel performance of cases and appropriate in mandamus where the law at 221 a ministerial provides no duty relief by 746 747 v Ziemer 1941 Where tax funds v Citv of New Orleans are 2 4 05 894 So 2d 325 the Louisiana dedicated taxes from being used a certain purpose they but must be applied as indiscriminately 334 335 Supreme 195 La 1054 dedicated to with other funds and used statute other purpose than Morehouse Parish School Board 956 clearly to tax Citv of New Orleans 238 La 738 747 748 116 Orleans Parish School Board v City of New Orleans 198 La 1940 La conflicts with provided for in the Tax Plan the Denham Springs Economic Development District 2004 1674 July 1 2007 St Helena Parish School Board 935 So 2d v 487 489 3 So 2d 745 now accompanying plan requires Orleans Parish School Board 509 v s near proposition previously EBRP EFID that determination ofthis clearly provided by law in So 2d 505 City assist the EBRP School Board to dedicated and see and proposition proceedings See Sund that is as special a proposition we levied situation in which of the repair of schools in the obtained from at they were by virtue of Central tax Central Middle School a new that stated in the five year unique a the stated purpose of the funds some a approved by the electorate with the renovation and of faced with we are of collection of from EBRP separation So 2d Supreme 6 So 2d midpoint revenues La Louisiana Assessors Retirement and Relief Fund 2005 2548 In the instant matter use Moreover the Louisiana 127 for purposes other than those for which taxes La 10 1107 the approved by consistently interpreted the constitution to prohibit the use of dedicated of New Orleans the and Morehouse Parish School Board 41 874 41 875 v Cir 4 25 07 Court has and Baker to Court v All Taxpayers Property where in interpreting a tax recognized that the statute for purposes other than their dedicated purpose 10 ordinary and where the means specific LSA C C P So 153 2d at v could 39 704 Qudicial or Proposition not So 2d 1013 entitlement s now discretion there is performance no of the EBRP ministerial simple of herein at duty not available See LSA C CP in appropriate a mandamus art Thus this erred in although on other grounds longer 1 R S 938 for Board for the was some Because the part of the EBRP School 3863 s Thus we on rights if compel the may review any to we find these tax court s denial of 7 Two Three and Four 17 66 F l does not court mandate the transfer to all movable property for education purposes located the extent that the trial court merits Central Cir 6 9 06 assignments of error the Central Board contends that the trial the Central Board of 7To See assignment of error lacks merit concluding that LSA mandamus relief Tax Plan provides affirm the trail we Assignments of Error Numbers In these School purpose of proceeding Moreover because relief is through ordinary proceedings mandamus relief t App issue that determination of the issue of the Central Board funds is mandamus under LSA incorporated La on to clear and not seemingly internally inconsistent modification of the Plan involves discretion Board to Moreover it appears that the Tax Plan the at legal right sought analysis and reconciliation 1 and the dedicated funds within its 1016 modification find the we be determined without otherwise of the No be enforced is clear and St Tammany Parish Police JUry 690 The City of Baton Rouge 2005 1353 v to by the Central Board via mandamus is Instead the Central Board specific Moyse 3862 Allen art Given the circumstances herein be enforced herein RS legal right sought reasons not entitled to judgment denied the Central Board s request for orally assigned which oral reasons expressed that on the s 18 398 333 00 in dedicated funds because Central was no part of East Baton Rouge Parish School System as of July 1 2007 the trial court erred given our ruling that a mandamus action is not appropriate herein a 11 within the geographic boundaries of the Central school system during the 2006 2007 school year 2 Central school system taxes 2007 all buses used during the 2006 2007 school year and 3 collected in Central before Accordingly we provide student transportation to July 2007 but received 1 review Central s by to the sales and use EBRP after July 1 request for relief under LSA R S 17 66 applying precepts that govern mandamus proceedings Louisiana Revised Statute 17 66 the Central 17 66 F was enacted to provide for the creation of Community School Board and school system 1 was school system to enacted to provide for the transfer of In LSA R S property from the EBRP the Central school system in pertinent part The Central particular as follows Community School Board shall begin actual operation of providing for the education of students within its jurisdiction on July 1 2007 Beginning on the date the school board begins actual operation of providing for the education of students and all lands and thereafter buildings improvements facilities and other property having title vested in the public and subject to management administration and control by the East Baton Rouge Parish School Board for public education but located within the purposes geographic boundaries of the Central community school system or used to provide student transportation services to such facilities or both shall be managed administered and controlled by the Central Community School Board Emphasis added With trial as court regard to the transfer of movable property considered LSA R S 17 66 F I to Central from EBRP the and further denied mandamus relief follows The trigger date that this court believes applies is July 1 2007 public education purposes during the 2006 Plaintiff states for the 2007 school year But it clear in this court s mind the legislature meant July 1 2007 when the board was created when the school district was created There was no testimony that any property movable property 2007 that on was was taken from the district from July 1 Therefore any movable property that was taken prior to still in the control custody of the East Baton Rouge Parish was School System to do as they choose fit for the different programs and schools throughout East Baton Rouge Parish School System 12 The Central Board contends that the EBRP from schools in Central amendment and throughout the as Legislature which days after the election the 2006 2007 school year Board had to LSA RS used public property contemplated in LSA was 17 66 F transfer to RS Central schools or 17 66 F transfer did to a ministerial the estimated value thereof Central not remove no and that EBRP prior to s July 1 2007 Contrariwise EBRP further contends that prior As to to July discretion attempt to violates as the merits of the courts may be exercised not and to to The Central Board determine which property transfer not the Central only to the property that it only the letter of the but law 66 RS 17 66 F I as only requiring the 2007 all schools July e 1 on the date 2007 EBRP in the jurisdiction of were such the EBRP School Board had the discretion parties dispute over we various items of movable again note that in mandamus only compel action that is clearly provided for by law lie in matters where discretion and evaluation of evidence The date the school board buildings 2007 1 at geographic boundaries of Central 1 to equipment should be located and mandamus will must duty and is required by law formerly located property and funds under LSA R S 17 66 F l proceedings property the EBRP School began actual operations i the EBRP School Board and decide where as by July interprets LSA transfer of property located in the the Central School Board clearly recognized by geographic boundaries of the Central also the spirit and intent of LSA R S 17 to l school system and all property further contends that EBRP has was the constitutional educate students in Central schools to transfer all property located within the Community on The Central Board contends that pursuant EBRP has l equipment and material removed by applicable law clearly provides begins actual operation improvements facilities and other 13 July that 1 property b eginning 2007 all on the lands located within the of geographic boundaries controlled Central shall be the which statute However that note Thus for these proceeding erred given the intent and 1 spirit of equities the Central Board argues should weigh in its favor again we court and See LSA R S 17 66 F by the Central Community School Board The Central Board argues that the trial administered managed prohibited from doing we are to reasons the extent so in a mandamus that the judgment of the trial court denied the Central Board mandamus relief under LSA R S 17 66 the ruling must be affirmed ordinary process to the However in doing other or means use taxes including to funds LSA R S as be transferred language of LSA RS 17 66 F a to that Central may seek relief by petition for declaratory judgment July 17 66 F 2007 1 s argument that the sales should be transferred mandates 1 for the reasons 1 find that this is we as property the Central Board collected in Central after from EBRP Central we note including parties competing rights and claims Moreover with reference and so to that all property stated above even given the relief that not can be granted or the claim determined in a mandamus proceeding Although the Central Board points out that some 1 2007 of Central on funds property as July of these funds a were compelling of a ministerial duty to or mandamus geographic boundaries determination of whether Central is entitled contemplated by the legal right within the act on statute requires more the enforcement of a to than the clear and such mere specific proceedings Thus With the trial we also find regard to ruled as court The As such resolution of this issue is also duty no merit to these two not appropriate assignments of error the issue of transfer of school buses from EBRP to Central follows issue is similar that the Central Community School Board asked for an additional thirty one buses There was no testimony put forth that an additional thirty one buses were being used on the next 14 in trigger date East Baton Rouge Parish delivered thirty one buses to the Central School District prior to the July 1 trigger date But there was no testimony or evidence put forth this court to which is that after July July 2007 1 2007 East Baton System was still utilizing Community School System additional buses 1 or to Rouge Parish School providing services to the Central warrant that they do not take any within that geographical district There was testimony that sixty two buses or possibly sixty three buses were used during the 06 07 school year but there was no testimony that there sixty buses located within the geographic boundaries of the Central Community School System from July I on SoL therefore the court is denying the writ of mandamus for the additional thirty one buses were two On review of this issue Statute 17 66 F l uses the we disjunctive of property located within the property used the public and subject Baton setting erred to forth the required transfer boundaries of Central follows as well as that property having title vested in management administration and control by the East to student provide eginning transportation services Accordingly 1 July on located in Central shall be Louisiana Revised purposes but located geographic boundaries of the Central community school system Emphasis added b court Rouge Parish School Board for public education within the used as in or geographic transport students to find the trial or used to were used to transfer those buses that were Thus the trial that Central was court having F 66 and controlled 1 The Central used erred in only entitled to we hereby grant to Central by the Central Community undisputed testimony shows As such to both title vested in EBRP and the year to statute that at provide student mandates that EBRP Central interpretating LSA those buses that R S were 17 66 F l to mean located within the geographic boundaries of the Central Community school system Accordingly or clearly provides that statute during the 2006 2007 school transportation services facilities provide student transportation services LSA R S 17 least 62 buses find the 2007 property all managed administered School Board we to such or on July 1 2007 the request for mandamus relief and order that 15 EBRP transfer language denying used to additional 31 buses an of LSA R S 17 66 F the Central Board s The 1 Central pursuant to portion of the trial to this court mandatory s judgment request for mandamus relief and transfer of the buses provide transportation services to students in Central is We find merit the to assignment reversed of error Assignment of Error Number Five In the final assignment of error the Central Board contends that the ofthe former EBRP fund balance in existence to on July 1 2007 portion plus interest equal the percentage of the total number of Central students who attended schools within the former EBRP school system public property which should be transferred argues that were s collected ince the funds on two successor it is were Hammond v we enrolled may to trial court compel no EBRP authority or Thus Further at See LSA C C P art as 3863 find we no merit to this it is not See City of pretermitting the only we such that may be assignment of error 16 specific legal find that the Central Accordingly proceeding we clear and transfer these funds to So 2d correctly denied this relief mandamus of June 30 2007 during the 2006 2007 school year show that this transfer of funds involves duty required by law as the number of students who resided equitable considerations urged by the Central Board to The Central Board only equitable that those public funds be divided by the Parish of Tangipahoa Board has failed is which included students who population However the Central Board cites by which Central represented by the fund balance school boards in proportion in each system and right to behalf of the student resided in Central the 2006 2007 school year during a ministerial find that the granted in a Answer to In its Appeal appeal EBRP challenges the trial answer to Exceptions of No Cause of Action Unauthorized Use ofa court denial of its s Summary Proceeding Improper Cumulation of Actions and Vagueness and Ambiguity resolution of the above not assignments of error wherein we Given our find that mandamus is appropriate remedy herein for the relief requested by the Central Board an under LSA RS 39 704 and LSA R S issues raised in EBRP relief under the s answer to 17 66 to discussed above as pretermit To the extent that appeal specific mandate pursuant transfer of school buses we discussion of the we grant mandamus LSA R S 17 66 F l requiring the we will address EBRP s answer to appeal The function of the exception of no cause of action challenges sufficiency of the petition by determining whether the law affords facts alleged in the pleading 2005 0072 La App 1 0604 La 5 26 06 st Davis cc P art as true support A court must review the 931 and the the petition the only issue on the trial of the 94 2173 or La 4 27 07 controvert the 955 So 2d 699 LSA objection petition and accept all well pleaded facts plaintiff is legally entitled Options of Louisiana Inc remedy on the 928 So 2d 549 554 writs denied 2006 930 So 2d 25 and 2007 0481 No evidence may be introduced to legal St Francisville Country Manor LLC v Cir 2110 06 a the to exception the relief App 1st Cir La is whether sought Cage 6 23 95 the face of on v Adoption 657 So 2d 670 671 Central School Board LSA R S 17 66 F of the Petition for Writs of Mandamus seeks s to transfer buses used 17 66 F 1 As 1 afford a remedy petition the to plaintiff has the facts set compel the EBRP provide student transportation pursuant discussed above on to the provisions of alleged in the pleadings and forth 17 a cause to LSA R S on the face of action for the relief sought Accordingly exception of no cause LSA C C P art used for trial mandamus allowed or 2592 provides in EBRP s pertinent part disposition of the following proceeding are not to 6 only A mandamus Moreover the be addressed by that note we Summary proceedings matters proceeding proceeding summary dilatory exception s of a summary proceeding use 723 So 2d 994 995 writ denied may be A habeas corpus proceeding is clearly propriety of the merits of the See procedural exception a 97 2003 La 1 98 3075 App La 2 12 99 1 st Cir 738 So 2d To the extent that EBRP argues that their transfer of buses to Central to pursuant LSA R S proceeding for the that the statute the trial summary 17 66 F reasons set 1 is not forth in our in a mandamus or court correctly denied summary discussion of this issue above does in fact mandate that EBRP transfer the buses EBRP argues that Central s exception ordinary proceeding ie a improperly has proceeding of mandamus with relief that that the appropriate to we find Central of unauthorized of use proceedings EBRP an denial of EBRP court s St Tammany Fire Protection District No v 25198 9 Thus the trial quo warranto or as a mandamus 572 to the exception of unauthorized raising correctly overruled court of action With reference Smith find the trial we on reVIew suit for can cumulated the summary only be acquired through the declaratory judgment However only relief sought herein by Central is mandamus Central has declaratory judgment relief in this proceeding Thus we find no use we not merit of note sought to this argument In response to EBRP ambiguity buses used to the extent by Central s that argument concerning its exception of vagueness and we granted relief on we note that Central s petition for mandamus follows 18 mandamus with regard to states the as On about July 15 2007 EBRP School Board transferred thirty one 31 buses of similar quality and condition to those used to provide student transportation services to facilities located in the Central Community School System Upon information and belief in excess or of sixty two 62 buses were used to transport students to schools located within the geographic boundaries of the Central Community School System during the 2006 2007 school year The law provides no relief by ordinary means and the delay involved in obtaining ordinary relief will cause injustice Therefore the Central Community School Board is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing EBRP School Board to transfer additional buses of similar transport students to boundaries of Central quality and condition facilities located Community School to within thirty 31 one those used to the geographic System during the 2006 2007 school year Additionally the transfer of the funds will not have the effect of creating a deficit in the funds of the EBRP School Board On review mandamus 17 66 F we relief l find nothing ambiguous or vague in Central concerning the transfer of buses pursuant Accordingly we find the trial court s request for to LSA R S correctly denied EBRP s exception of vagueness and ambiguity CONCLUSION Based on the above and judgment of the trial court foregoing reasons the November is affirmed in part and reversed in part hereby rendered in favor of the Central Community School East Baton as Rouge Parish School Board required by law The Costs of this to the Central answer to appeal in the to return 2007 Judgment is ordering the transfer the 31 buses at issue is denied appeal amount or Board 7 of 1 646 00 Community School Board and the are assessed East Baton one half each Rouge Parish School Board AFFIRMED IN PART REVERSED IN PART AND RENDERED ANSWER TO APPEAL DENIED 19 STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2008 CA 0036 CENTRAL COMMUNITY SCHOOL BOARD VERSUS EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH SCHOOL BOARD EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT in part dissents in and assigns GUIDRY J concurs GUIDRY J for dissent concurring in part and dissenting in part I dissent from that respectfully part portion of the majority opinion that affirms the denial of mandamus relief with respect and materials removed from concluded based on to 2007 and that there language of La was no the 17 66 F R S EBRP had to as transfer providing to the July is the date for not conclude the language of La 2007 date is 1 which this determination is determining the R S to 17 66 F be made extent were located and used at was was on that date merely the date to on I believe the date to speech therapy equipment which which the latter on was Thus since I 1 does not clearly provide the Tanglewood Elementary July 1 located within the of that property became effective December 10 2006 should be used The record indicates the audio receive ambiguous in that it could the Central Board all the property entitled and to community school system I court that the crucial date for 1 evidence this movable property boundaries of the Central interpreted School The trial entitled was However I find the language of La R S l7 66 F also be audiolspeech therapy equipment Tanglewood Elementary what property the Central Board determining geographic the reasons which the date on statute make this determination and materials in School during question the 2006 2007 school year and Accordingly were not removed from there until the end of the school year since this movable property boundaries of the Central 17 66 F community was located within the school system on the date La became effective I believe the Central Board is entitled 1 geographic to R S mandamus relief ordering the return of this movable property For the above majority property s reasons I respectfully dissent from that portion of the opinion affirming the denial of mandamus relief I concur in the result reached as to this movable by the majority in all other respects 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
