Claims Against County Council Members Dismissed
WINNSBORO – A Sixth Circuit Court judge has dismissed lawsuits against three Fairfield County Council members, effectively ending efforts by a citizens activist group to recoup funds paid by the County in lieu of supplemental health insurance, as well as funds expended for tuition reimbursements.
Judge R. Knox McMahon issued his order Jan. 30, dismissing “with prejudice” claims against Council Chairman David Ferguson (District 5), Councilman Mikel Trapp (District 3) and Councilwoman Mary Lynn Kinley (District 6). In his order, Knox wrote that the Court agreed with the contentions of the defendants that the plaintiffs “lack standing to pursue” the claims against the Council members.
Citing the S.C. Supreme Court case Freemantle v. Preston, Knox wrote that the state’s high court explained that a plaintiff may acquire standing in one of three ways: “1) through the rubric of ‘constitutional standing;’ 2) under the ‘public importance’ exception; or 3) by statute.” Since no statute exists to confer standing to the plaintiffs in this case, Knox wrote, that leaves only ‘constitutional’ and ‘public importance’.
For a ‘constitutional standing’, Knox wrote, “a plaintiff must first show that he has suffered an injury in fact – an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” Quoting from the State Supreme Court, Knox continued, “a taxpayer lacks constitutional standing when he suffers in some indefinite way in common with people generally.”
“The same reasoning applies here,” Knox wrote. “The alleged injury Plaintiffs complain of – misuse of public funds – (if it occurred and if it is an injury) is common to all citizens and taxpayers of Fairfield County. Plaintiffs cannot show that they have suffered any concrete and particularized injury; at most they have suffered in some indefinite way in common with all people in Fairfield County generally.
The plaintiffs could also not resort to the ‘public importance exception,’ which allows a court to relax standing requirements “when an issue is of such public importance as to require its resolution for future guidance,” Knox wrote. Again referring to the Preston case, Knox wrote that the plaintiffs in this case were “not seeking injunctive relief but rather monetary relief for themselves based on purported causes of action at common law. As the Preston Court held, these types of claims are inconsistent with standing based upon the public importance exception. Moreover the personnel policy of Fairfield County with respect to past health care disbursements made to county council members is not an ‘issue of such public importance as to require resolution for future guidance’.”
Even if the plaintiffs could have demonstrated standing, Knox wrote, the case would have been dismissed on other grounds.
“Plaintiffs’ claims fail as a matter of law because Plaintiffs have not alleged, and cannot allege, the elements necessary for the two claims they assert [unjust enrichment abuse of trust and conversion – i.e., defendants converted money belonging to plaintiffs to their own uses].”
In the matter of unjust enrichment abuse of trust, Knox wrote that since the funds in question were public funds, “any claim for restitution belongs to the County, not to Plaintiffs.” In the matter of conversion, Knox wrote, “Plaintiffs had neither title to nor right to possess the public funds in question, which belonged to Fairfield County. Moreover, Defendants had no obligation to deliver the funds to the Plaintiffs – in fact, the law would have prevented them from doing so.”
Attorney Jonathan M. Goode, of the Goode Law Firm in Winnsboro, filed the lawsuits on Oct. 25, representing State Rep. MaryGail Douglas (D-41) and 15 others as plaintiffs. The Council members were represented by John Carroll Moylan III of Columbia and Wade Stackhouse Kolb III of Greenville. Phone calls to Goode were not returned at press time. Douglas, meanwhile, expressed her disappointment in the outcome.
“I, along with the other plaintiffs have done all we can do to make this situation right,” Douglas said in a written statement Tuesday night. “We took it to the court system. The court system has spoken and I respect that decision. The decision rendered was that three County Council members skated on a technicality. While the court system forgave them on a technicality, the taxpayers in our county will not be so forgiving. It was wrong for them to accept that money and they know it. Those who skated on this technicality will have to answer to the taxpayers in Fairfield County. As disappointing as this is, we will move on.”
The lawsuit came after the S.C. Attorney General’s Office issued an opinion last July that characterized as unconstitutional cash payouts to the three County Council members to cover supplemental health insurance premiums, and likewise tuition reimbursements to Trapp. Shortly after the opinion, the County ended the payouts. Since 2009, Ferguson, Trapp and Kinley were receiving $475 a month from the County to cover their own supplemental hospitalization insurance. Covered by a state plan for their primary health insurance, Ferguson, Trapp and Kinley were therefore not eligible for the County’s supplemental coverage.
