Connell

County of Santa Barbara v. Connell

Good Law
1999 Cal. App. LEXIS 484·72 Cal. App. 4th 175·85 Cal. Rptr. 2d 43·99 Daily Journal DAR 4691·99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3637
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 18, 1999No. D031171California4,579 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Work, J.

State Controller Kathleen Connell (the Controller) audited the court revenues of the County of Santa Barbara for the period of July 1, 1991, through June 30, 1994, to determine the adequacy of the court revenues it remitted to the state. She determined the County of Santa Barbara was entitled to withhold only $3, rather than the $25 it actually withheld as funding for automation and micrographics, from each civil filing fee collected from September 15, 1992 (the effective date of the Trial Court Trust *178 Fund legislation) through June 1994. Her audit directed the County of Santa Barbara to remit an additional $277,266 to the state Treasurer. The County of Santa Barbara and the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Barbara (collectively, the County) filed a complaint for declaratory relief seeking a declaration that no portion of the $277,266 was owed and that its $25 automation fee could continue to be withheld.

The trial court granted summary judgment for the Controller, ruling the statutory scheme permitted the County to withhold no more than $3 from each filing fee. The County appeals, contending its $25 fee has at all times been a valid…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.