Appeals Court permits Richmond County schools’ pursuit of $272,000 from state

The North Carolina Court of Appeals is allowing the Richmond County school board to continue its more than decadelong quest for $272,000 from state government. A split 2-1 decision Wednesday rejected state officials’ request to have the case dismissed.

The dispute stems from a 2011 state law that required defendants convicted of driving with improper equipment in North Carolina to pay a new $50 fee. The fee was designated to cover prison maintenance costs.

The Richmond school board sued, arguing that the money should head instead to local schools. “Plaintiff based its contention on a provision in our state constitution which mandates that fines collected in a county court be used for the public schools in that county,” Chief Judge Chris Dillon wrote for the Appeals Court majority.

The state Appeals Court addressed the initial lawsuit three times. First, appellate judges agreed that sovereign immunity did not protect the state from the lawsuit. Second, appellate judges agreed with a trial judge that the money should head to local schools rather than prison maintenance.

After the second appeal, the trial court ordered state officials to pay the schools $272,300 in fines connected to the 2011 law.

“In the third appeal, however, we reversed the trial court’s order, concluding that it is not in the power of the judiciary to order satisfaction of the judgment against the State; that is, the judgment could be satisfied only if our General Assembly appropriated the money to satisfy the judgment,” Dillon wrote.

In February 2024, the Richmond County school board returned to court, “seeking that a new judgment be entered” based on the earlier judgment of $272,300 against the state, Dillon explained. A trial judge rejected state officials’ motion to dismiss the case in July 2024.

“We agree with Defendants that any judgment that Plaintiff may obtain in this matter may not ever be collectible,” Dillon wrote.

“Plaintiff obtained a valid judgment in the prior action, though Plaintiff at present cannot collect, as our General Assembly has not appropriated the money to pay the judgment,” he added.

That’s not necessarily the end of the story.

“Our General Assembly has determined that a judgment creditor’s right to collect on a judgment is subject to a ten-year statute of limitations but that a judgment credit may bring a new action to enforce the prior judgment one time, thus effectively renewing a prior judgment for ten more years,” Dillon wrote.

“Here, Plaintiff seeks to renew the judgment it obtained in the first action,” the chief judge explained. “And based on the record before us, it appears that Plaintiff commenced this present action within ten years of that first judgment. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did not err by denying Defendants’ motion to dismiss.”

“If Plaintiff is successful in this action in ‘renewing’ its prior judgment, Plaintiff still may never collect, depending on whether our General Assembly appropriates money to pay any said new judgment. Nonetheless, Plaintiff is entitled to renew its judgment and hope,” Dillon wrote.

Judge Allegra Collins joined Dillon’s opinion. Judge Julee Flood dissented.

“While the majority concludes that Plaintiff, in filing its complaint (the ‘Complaint’), ‘seeks to renew the judgment it obtained in the first action[,]’ the face of the Complaint reveals an absence of law and fact in support of Plaintiff’s claim, and such a conclusion requires that this Court make inferences impermissible under our standard of review,” Flood wrote.

“[T]he money judgment explicitly identified in Plaintiff’s prayer for relief was reversed by this Court, and therefore no longer exists,” Flood added.

Flood would have ordered the trial judge to grant state officials’ motion to dismiss the case.

The post Appeals Court permits Richmond County schools’ pursuit of $272,000 from state first appeared on Carolina Journal.