Judge dismisses Kloses' case
Staff writer
Small claims court lacks jurisdiction in this case, he says
A judge ruled Sept. 3 that the case of Garry Klose and Loretta Klose against Rural Water District No. 5 must be dismissed, because the small claims court did not have jurisdiction in the case.
Appearing in Marion County District Court, small claims division, for the water district were Marion attorney Chris Costello and the RWD's treasurer, Howard Collett.
Judge Thomas H. Ball of Council Grove said he was persuaded by a Kansas attorney general's opinion issued July 8, 1988, involving a rural water district and provisions of the Kansas Open Meetings Act.
An AG's opinion is not law, but a directive, Judge Ball said. He said he himself was a special agent with the attorney general's office in 1988, but had nothing to do with the water district-open meetings case or opinion.
The judge complimented both sides in the case on the briefs they submitted on the law in the case. "You did a real fine job," he said. Garry Klose said his wife, Loretta, did the work on the couple's brief.
Costello said he had not received a copy of the Kloses' brief. He said that in past case law, courts have recognized political subdivisions and municipalities as having police powers, the power to tax, and the eminent domain power.
An entity does not need to possess all of those in order to be a quasi-municipal or political subdivision, Costello said.
The water district has eminent domain power, "and that indicates to me they (the state) were creating a political subdivision," he said.
The judge said a rural water district is a governmental entity, a body of the state, and is not subject to the jurisdiction of a small claims court. It is a political entity, he said.
The case was "a close call," a hard decision to make, he added.
The 1988 AG's opinion said that RWD's are political subdivisions of the state, Ball said. They have the power to obtain loans, to issue bonds, etc.
The fees they receive are not public funds, although they may receive some public monies from other sources.
The districts can enter into agreements with the federal secretary of agriculture or his representatives.
There was no established case law that explicitly governed in this case, Ball said. He gave the Kloses 10 days to appeal his ruling, but they said, after the brief hearing, that they would not appeal.
"It was worth the 51 dollars to see how the courts work," said Loretta Klose.
The couple was seeking a refund from the RWD of the remaining $1,000 they felt was owed to them. It was part of a total fee of $2,600 they paid the entity. They were given back $1,600 when the sign-up fee was lowered from its initial $2,600 to $1,000, but never got back the other $1,000, they said.
The couple said they heard that someone in the Tampa area received a complete refund of their $2,600 from the district, and they felt they should be entitled to the same treatment.
