Smith v. East Baton Rouge Parish

509 So. 2d 24
CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal
DecidedJuly 1, 1987
DocketCA 86 1685
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 509 So. 2d 24 (Smith v. East Baton Rouge Parish) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Smith v. East Baton Rouge Parish, 509 So. 2d 24 (La. Ct. App. 1987).

Opinion

509 So.2d 24 (1987)

T. Frank SMITH
v.
The PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE, Louisiana, and the East Baton Rouge Sewerage Commission.

No. CA 86 1685.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

May 27, 1987.
Writ Granted July 1, 1987.

*25 Stephen M. Irving, Baton Rouge, for plaintiff-appellant T. Frank Smith.

Victor A. Sachse, III, Baton Rouge, for defendant-appellee Parish of East Baton Rouge, et al.

Micheal R. Connelly, Baton Rouge, for intervenor-appellee Walter Penny.

Before GROVER L. COVINGTON, C.J., and LANIER and ALFORD, JJ.

LANIER, Judge.

This is a suit seeking to determine the validity of revenue bonds intended to finance the construction and acquisition of capital improvements to the sewerage system of East Baton Rouge Parish and, if the bonds are determined to be invalid, to enjoin their sale and delivery. The plaintiff[1] contends the bonds are invalid because (1) parish general funds will be used to finance the bonds, (2) parish general funds cannot be dedicated for more than ten years and these are forty year bonds, (3) the dedication of parish general funds for forty years is an impermissible restriction on the power of the parish governing authority to appropriate its revenues, and (4) general revenue funds consist primarily of sales and property taxes, and such monies cannot be dedicated to secure the payment of bonds without a vote of the people. The trial court dismissed the suit because it determined the bonds were legally valid and because the plaintiff did not prove his standing to bring the suit. The plaintiff took this appeal. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the appeal because the plaintiff's appellate brief was not timely filed pursuant to La.R.S. 13:5128.

FACTS

On May 15, 1985, the East Baton Rouge Parish Metropolitan Council (Council), in its capacity as the governing authority of the City of Baton Rouge (City), the Parish of East Baton Rouge (Parish) and the Greater Baton Rouge Consolidated Sewerage District (District) adopted Ordinance 7853, authorizing the levy and collection of sewer user fees from all residential and business users of the sewerage system serving the Parish. Under Ordinance 7853, the revenues collected from the user fees could be used to pay the "cost of administration, operation, maintenance, depreciation, replacement, extension and improvement of the Sewerage System, including any payments required by the provisions of any resolution authorizing the issuance of sewerage revenue bonds."

On October 8, 1986, by Resolution 25577, the Council, again acting as the governing authority of the City, the Parish and the District, approved an Intergovernmental Agreement by and among the City, the Parish and the District, pursuant to which the East Baton Rouge Sewerage Commission (Commission) was created, and the Council named itself the governing authority of the Commission. Under the Intergovernmental Agreement, the Council authorized the newly created Commission to "construct, acquire, extend, improve, use, operate and maintain" the sewerage system of the Parish and "receive and dispose of the revenues of the System." The Intergovernmental Agreement also authorized the Commission to issue revenue bonds to pay the cost of construction and acquisition of certain major capital improvements to the sewerage system of the Parish. The Intergovernmental Agreement obligates the Parish to continue to operate and maintain the sewerage system for a period of forty years. In addition to the Parish's obligations to operate, maintain and improve the sewerage system on behalf of the Commission, the Intergovernmental Agreement also obligates the Parish, for the forty year term of the contract, to annually appropriate and pay $8,000,000 of *26 the costs of operation and maintenance of the sewerage system.

On the same day it adopted Resolution 25577, the Council, in its capacity as the governing body of the Commission, adopted a resolution authorizing the issuance of sewer revenue bonds, not to exceed $60,000,000, maturing in annual installments of principal over a period of twenty-five years and payable from, and secured by, a "pledge of and a lien upon, that portion of the Gross Revenues which shall remain after paying the cost of operation and maintenance of the System." By a supplemental resolution of October 15, 1986, the Council, as governing body of the Commission, authorized the actual sale of $55,000,000 of sewerage revenue bonds.

This suit was filed by T. Frank Smith on November 13, 1986, against the Parish and the Commission.

MOTION TO DISMISS THE APPEAL

The defendants-appellees, Parish and Commission, moved to dismiss the appeal, contending the plaintiff's appellate brief was not timely filed by January 2, 1987, as required by La.R.S. 13:5128.

The dates, which are pertinent to rule on this motion, are as follows:

(1) December 12, 1986—judgment rendered and signed in the trial court;
(2) December 18, 1986—petition for appeal filed in trial court;
(3) January 1, 1987—a Thursday and the twentieth day after the judgment in the trial court was rendered and signed;
(4) January 2, 1987—a Friday which was declared a legal holiday, pursuant to an executive order authorized by La. R.S. 1:55(B)(3); and
(5) January 5, 1987—a Monday and the day on which the plaintiff's appellate brief was filed in this court.

La.R.S. 13:5121 et seq. provides for a special, expedited procedure for determining the validity of governmental bonds. La.R.S. 13:5128 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

From the final judgment of the court an appeal shall lie to the supreme court where permitted by the constitution or laws of this state, otherwise to the court of appeal. No such appeal shall be allowed unless the petition therefor be filed within ten days from the date on which the judgment of the court is entered and only if the party taking the appeal has the record certified to the proper appellate court and his brief filed therein within twenty days from the date on which the judgment of the court is entered, or such shorter time as may be required by the appellate court. If the appeal be timely and otherwise in conformity herewith and if the appellate court allows the same it shall be given preferential docketing. [Emphasis added.]

La.C.C.P. art. 5059 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

In computing a period of time allowed or prescribed by law or by order of court, the date of the act, event, or default after which the period begins to run is not to be included. The last day of the period is to be included, unless it is a legal holiday, in which event the period runs until the end of the next day which is not a legal holiday.
A half-holiday is considered as a legal holiday.

La.R.S. 1:55(B)(3) provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

B. Legal holidays shall be observed by the departments of the state as follows:
....
(3) The governor, by executive proclamation, may authorize the observance of such other holidays and half-holidays as he may deem in keeping with efficient administration.

La.R.S. 1:55(E)(1) and (3) provide, in pertinent part, as follows:

E. (1) Each clerk of a district court, parish court, and city court shall close his office on the following days: New Year's Day, January 1; ... and New Year's Eve Day, December 31.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Richardson v. Reeves
600 So. 2d 138 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1992)
Corley v. Craft
571 So. 2d 718 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1990)
Smith v. Parish of East Baton Rouge
515 So. 2d 632 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1987)
Smith v. Parish of East Baton Rouge
510 So. 2d 1 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
509 So. 2d 24, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-east-baton-rouge-parish-lactapp-1987.