AAC F A M I L Y & F R I E N D S
» » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » »
County court has authority to adjudicate claims against county
Te county judge is the judge of the county court. Te county court is a real judicial court. Te county court acts ju- dicially in allowance of claims against county. [Hutson v. State, 1926, 171 Ark. 1132, 287 S.W. 398 (1926)].
Judicial vs. Executive Functions: Te county court is, strictly speaking, not the county judge. It is a court presided over by one judge, the “county judge,” who, when so presiding, acts in a judicial, rather than an executive capacity. (See Arkansas Con- stitution, Article 7, Section 28 and ACA § 14-14-1105(a). AG Op. No. 97-181.) “Although the Arkansas Supreme Court has meticulously separated the judicial and executive functions of the county judge on a case-by-case basis, there is still great confusion in Arkansas with respect to what the county court is.” [Com- ment, County Government Reorganization in Arkansas, 28 Ark. L. Rev. 226, 235 (1974). AG Op. No. 97-181.] Te judicial powers of the “county court” in Arkansas Constitution Article 7, Section 28 were not displaced by the executive powers given the county judge by Amendment 55, Section 3.
ity of the County Court to decide claims against the county is explained in ACA §14-23-101, entitled “Presentment and Ap- peals,” which states: (a) All persons having demands against any county shall present them, duly verified according to law, to the county court of the county for allowance or rejection. (b) From the order of the court thereon, appeals may be prosecuted as pro- vided by law. If on any such appeal the judgment of the county court is reversed, the judgment of reversal shall be certified by the court rendering it to the county court, and the court shall thereupon enter the judgment of the superior court as its own.
Just Compensation Example: In Chamberlain v. Newton County, 266 Ark. 516, 587 S.W.2d 4 (1979), the Arkansas Su- preme Court dealt with the question of a claim against a county for an alleged trespass by an encroachment caused by construc- tion of a county road. Te landowner filed her petition against the county seeking to enjoin the taking of her property for such road but the court ruled that, since the taking had already occurred,
ONL INE
www.arcounties.orgFind County Lines online and see our Web site which contains data an on all 75
counties, legislative updates and much more. @75arcounties COUNTY LINES, SPRING 2016 23 Adjudicating Claims Against the County: Te author-
County Law Update
the landowner’s only remedy against county was to file claim in county court for just compensation for the alleged taking. Te court explained that because the landowner had stood by and permitted the improvement to proceed until substantial roadwork had been done, the landowner was relegated to the county’s credit for compensation for the taking by the county. Te court said that the land- owner’s “only remedy against New- ton County was to file a claim in the County Court of Newton County for just compensation for a completed taking.” (Id. at 587 S.W.2d 520.) Te court then said: “Exclusive jurisdiction of appellant’s claim for compensation is vested in the County Court of New- ton County as a matter relating to county roads.” (Article 7, Sec- tion 28, of the Constitution of Arkansas was cited by the Court as authority for this conclusion.) Te court said, further, that “[t] he county could not be sued to recover this compensation by inverse condemnation proceedings.”
MIKE RAINWATER Risk Management Legal Counsel
Conclusion: Te exclusive jurisdiction of the county court, as a judicial court, is an important tool for counties to use both defensively and offensively in managing the risk of county liabil- ity. If, for example, a party is asserting a claim against the county, the matter can be decided in a county court proceeding that the county initiates. If a party sues a county in circuit court, then the county can and should ask for that lawsuit to be dismissed or transferred to the county court for the first level of adjudication.
Mike Rainwater, a regular contributor to County Lines and lead
attorney for AAC Risk Management, is principal shareholder of Rain- water, Holt, and Sexton, P.A., a state-wide personal injury and dis- ability law firm. Mr. Rainwater has been a lawyer for over 30 years, is a former deputy prosecuting attorney, and has defended city and county officials for over 25 years.
INTERACT IVE &
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52