AG19910325 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I body. However, the provisions then go on to state that such governing body has thc fight not to include the,se amounts in its final budget. Non-appropriation clauses are to be distinguished from 'no deficiency' provisions. I The lauer are simply limitations on thc abLlity of the lender to recover any amounts or other security from the governmental entity other than the items leased or purchased should the contract, for any reason, not be paid. Section 160A-20 specifically requlre~ that installment I sale conUacts include no deficiency provisions. However, there is no comparable requirement to include non-appropriation clauses. I The question as to whether, after the Wayna County case, non-appropriation clauses should be in installment sale contracts is Clouded by the exact facts in that ~_ There was a provision in the Wayne County installment sale contract which stated that a failure by the I County to appropriate could.occur. In addition, the Court clearly read the conlract to contemplate a right in the County to not appropriate annually. However, there is no specific provision dealing ~'ith nos-appropriation. If it were to occur under that cor~lract, there I would be a 'default' by the County on its obligations. Some bond attorneys prior to the Wayne County decision felt ~ non-appropriation I clauses were absolutely vital to defeat the argument that the contract constituted a 'debt' under the North Carolina Constitution. Thus, we had two arrows in our quiver for the constitutional argument - one that there was not a debt at all and two, that even if there was I a debt, it was not secured by the taxing power. In the Wayne County opinion, the Court appears to say ~at the second point is enough to allow constitutional approval. Logically, this should lead to the conclusion that non-appropriation clauses are not nec-_-~_~y, at least to I the extent they would be more specific than what was in the Wayne County documents. Three points, however, argue against this which may, in the aggregate, turn out to be I to be At the least gOVernmental units installment enough persuasive. very now considering sales should not blithely assume non-appropriations clauses should not appear. First, N.C.G.S. Section 159-13(b)(15) requires that certain amounts under continuing conlracts be I included in annual budgets. The only exception to this affirmative requirement is in an amendment added to the section in 1989 which states 'unless such contract rt. serves to the i governing board the right to limit or not to malco_ such appropriation.' The question is does a provision comgarablc to wha~ was in the Wayne County documents constitute an adequate 'reservation of the right?' If it does not, the~ failure by the govemmeata~ u~it to I appropriate in any year will be illegal, not just a financing problem!-" ! * Noto that ~ i~ue and several other~ (such as thc legality of mortgaging a courthouse) I were not mi~l by the plaintiffs in the Wayne County ea~. Whether they, if mi.~l, would have changed the result is unknown.