Board of County Commissioners v. Baden Volunteer Fire Department, Inc.

McWilliams, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Lest our opinion become unduly prolix it behooves us to be somewhat eclectic in our recital of the facts and circumstances attending this dispute over the distribution of fire tax funds in Prince George’s County. The parties, none of whom are strangers to us, have been able to resolve all facets of their present differences except one, i.e., whether the appellant (the County) is entitled to withhold $136,000 (actually $135,833.33) from funds found to be the due the appellees (the firemen). In 1967 the firemen discovered that the County had been collecting the taxes authorized by the provisions of Subtitle 32, “Fire Companies,” of the Prince George’s County Code (1968), which, they charged, should have been paid out to them to “be used for the purpose of purchasing, repairing, replacing, operating and maintaining * * * [their] fire fighting equipment and apparatus and the housing of the same * * Id. at § 32-10.

On 8 August 1967 they filed a bill of complaint to obtain possession of the funds which they alleged the County had “wrongfully and improperly” withheld. The chancellor, Bowie, J., ap ⁶⁶⁸ pointed a firm of certified public accountants to determine “the amount of undistributed fire taxes.” It surprised no one that the accountants thought the “complex laws relating to [the] collection and distribution of fire taxes * * * should be amended as soon as practicable.” In due course the chancellor ordered “the undistributed fire taxes” then held by the County “to be disbursed” to the firemen. On the same day, 23 January 1968, he passed a “supplemental order” in which he declared $709,533.69 to be “the fund due” the firemen, indicating also that the figure was “not subject to change.” Less than a month later, 13 February 1968, he allowed interest of $20,000 and in the same order he declared the “total fund” (after adding the interest) due the firemen to be $729,533.69. He also allowed a counsel fee of $45,000 to counsel for the firemen.

His decree concludes with the words “[a] 11 other provisions of this court’s final decree and supplemental order of January 23, 1968, not inconsistent herewith are ratified and confirmed.” Just below the chancellor’s signature are the words “we consent to the entry of this decree” (emphasis added); subscribed are the signatures of counsel both for the County and the firemen. On 13 March 1968 the chancellor ordered the disbursement of $500,000 of the $729,-533.69 found to be due. The County seems not to have objected. On 18 December 1968 the firemen filed a petition asking the court to direct the payment of the balance due them, i.e., $229,533.69 ($729,533.69-$500,000).

The County promptly objected claiming it had paid $136,000 to the firemen during 1965 and 1966 and that it was entitled to a credit for that amount. After a hearing in open court on 28 January 1969 the chancellor held the matter sub curia, until 27 March, at which time he filed his opinion and order. He noted the parties had “indicated that the amount stated in the Consent Decree [13 February 1968] to wit, $729,533.69 is correct.” He noted also a statement by the County that it was “in no way attacking the validity of * * * [the decree of 13 February 1968] thereby conceding that the de ⁶⁶⁹ cree is enrolled and binding.” He found as a fact that the money ($136,000) “used for the ‘Paid Man Program’ was an unauthorized use of the undistributed fire taxes collected and held by the County.” Perhaps it should be observed that the “Paid Man Program” was nothing more than a reasonably equitable disbursement of funds to individual fire companies for the sole purpose of enabling them to employ drivers; otherwise the equipment would not be able to turn out for daytime fires as nearly all of the volunteers would be at work. Nevertheless he held that to refuse the credit “would amount to [the] unjust enrichment” of the firemen at the expense of the County.

Shortly thereafter, however, he was persuaded to set aside the decree and to grant a rehearing. On 18 June he filed an opinion and decree in which he changed his position and ordered the inclusion of the $136,000. The chancellor found it unnecessary, in his final opinion, “to determine whether or not there was authorization for the County to disburse funds for the ‘Paid Man Program’ in 1965.” He concluded that: “[T]he weight of the evidence supports the [firemen’s] contention that the * * * [$136,-000] was disbursed * * * for the sole purpose of compensating the ‘Paid Men.’ In this regard the Fire * * * [Companies] were mere conduits