Opinion
44484 Record No. 810097.
April 29, 1983
Present: Carrico, C.J., Cochran, Poff, Compton, Stephenson, Russell, JJ., and Harrison, Retired Justice.
An oral contract for the purchase of land by a School Board under former Code Sec. 22-150 (now superseded by Code Sec. 22.1-128) is ultra vires and void; no estoppel against Board to raise defense of lack of writing.
(1) Contracts — Sale of land — Cities, Counties and Towns — Statutory Construction — Title to Real Estate for Public Uses to Be Approved by Attorney at Law [Code Sec. 22-150 (now superseded by Code Sec. 22.1-128 which Imposes No Writing Requirement)] — School Board May Exercise Only Such Powers as are Granted to It by the General Assembly.
(2) Contracts — Sale of land — Cities, Counties and Towns — Statutory Construction — Title to Real Estate for Public Uses to be Approved by Attorney at Law [Code Sec. 22-150 (now superseded by Code Sec. 22.1-128 which Imposes No Writing Requirement)] — Contract Not in Writing Is Ultra Vires and Void Ab Initio.
(3) Contracts — Sale of Land — Cities, Counties and Towns — Statutory Construction — Estoppel — Title to Real Estate for Public Uses to be Approved by Attorney at Law [Code Sec. 22-150 (now superseded by Code Sec. 22.1-128 which Imposes No Writing Requirement)] — No Estoppel Against Government Entitled to Raise Defense of Ultra Vires.
The Burleys, who had objected to a sale of land by an adjacent owner to a School Board in violation of a reciprocal negative easement imposing a residential restriction, agreed orally with the Board to sell their land. The purchase price was appropriated by the Board of Supervisors. However, newly elected Supervisors disapproved of the purchase from the Burleys. The School Board then purchased the land from the adjacent owner, but not the land of the Burleys. The Trial Court found a contract for sale existed between the School Board and the Burleys, that the Burleys had relied upon the contract to their detriment and that the School Board was estopped to claim the contract was invalid because not in writing as required by Code Sec. 22-150.
1. A County School Board may exercise only the power granted it by the General Assembly.
2. Code Sec. 22-150 (now superseded by Code Sec. 22.1-128 which contains no writing requirement) requires a contract by a School Board for the purchase of real estate to be in writing. This requirement is more stringent than the statute of frauds requirement in Code Sec. 11-2(6), a contract not in writing in violation of Code Sec. 22-150 being ultra vires and void ab initio.
3. The doctrine of estoppel cannot be imposed against a governmental entity when the contract is ultra vires and void. Deal v. Commonwealth, 224 Va. 618, 299 S.E.2d 346 (1983), followed.
Appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court of Amherst County. Hon. Norman K. Moon, judge presiding.
Reversed and final judgment.
J. Michael Gamble (Pendleton Gamble, on briefs), for appellant.
J. Frank Shepherd for appellees.
In April, 1980, J. Daniel and Mattie Burley filed suit against the School Board of Amherst County. They alleged a contract existed between the parties for the sale of certain real estate and asked the trial court to order the Board to specifically perform the contract. The School Board asserted, among other defenses, that the contract was not in writing and therefore was unenforceable under Code Sections 11-2(6) (the Statute of Frauds) and 22-150. The trial court ruled the Board was estopped to interpose these defenses and decreed specific performance.
At the time, Code 22-150 read in part as follows:
Sec. 22-150. Title to real estate for public uses to be approved by attorney at law. — Whenever it shall be necessary for any county, city or town school board, having authority for the purpose, to purchase real estate, or acquire title thereto for public uses, the contract therefor shall be in writing. . ..
This requirement was deleted when Title 22 was recodified as Title 22.1 in 1980. Acts 1980, c. 559.
The Burley property is located between two tracts owned by Timothy Whitehead. A reciprocal negative easement exists between the Burley parcel and one of the Whitehead tracts, restricting their use to residential purposes.
Whitehead offered to sell his tracts to the School Board, and the Board requested the County Board of Supervisors to appropriate money for the purchase. The Burleys objected to the sale, stating the School Board's use of the land would violate the residential restriction. Consequently, the Supervisors suggested that the School Board and the Burleys endeavor to resolve the issue.
On December 12, 1979, the parties met and discussed the problem. Although they continued to voice objection to the Whitehead purchase, the Burleys indicated a willingness to sell their property to the Board. At this meeting, the School Board resolved to pursue the requested appropriation for the Whitehead land and, additionally, to request funds from the Supervisors to either purchase the Burley property or to compensate them for the violation of the restrictive covenant.
The resolution was presented to the Supervisors on December 18, 1979. In an executive session, the Supervisors and the Burleys agreed on a purchase price of $82,500. Thereafter, members of the School Board were called into the executive session and informed of the agreed price. Although no formal action was taken on the matter by the School Board, the members, acting individually, appeared to give their approval. When the Board of Supervisors returned to its open meeting, it appropriated money to be used for the purchase of the Whitehead and Burley propertIes.
In January, 1980, newly elected Supervisors took office. The Board of Supervisors attempted to block both purchases. After receiving a legal opinion from the Attorney General, the School Board concluded the purchase of the Whitehead land, but did not carry out the agreement to purchase the Burley tract.
The trial court found a contract of sale existed between the School Board and the Burleys. It further found the Burleys had relied upon the contract to their detriment, since they had withdrawn their opposition to the Whitehead purchase. The court therefore held the School Board was estopped from claiming that the contract was invalid because it was not in writing.
Section 22-150 provided that when a school board purchased real estate "the contract therefor shall be in writing. . . ." This requirement was more stringent than the Statute of Frauds, which merely requires a memorandum signed by the party to be charged. Code Sec. 11-2(6). A school board may exercise only the power granted it by the General Assembly. Commonwealth v. Arlington County Bd., 217 Va. 558, 232 S.E.2d 30 (1977); Kellam v. School Board, 202 Va. 252, 117 S.E.2d 96 (1960). In this case, the Board's attempt to purchase property without following the mandate of Code Sec. 22-150 was ultra vires, and the purported contract was void ab initio.
The trial court ruled that the Board, by its conduct, was estopped from interposing Code Sec. 22-150 as a defense. However, even assuming that all the elements necessary to prove an estoppel were present, see T. . . v. T. . ., 216 Va. 867, 224 S.E.2d 148 (1976), the trial court erred in its ruling. The doctrine of estoppel cannot be imposed against a governmental entity when the contract is ultra vires and therefore void. Deal v. Commonwealth, 224 Va. 618, 623, 299 S.E.2d 346, 348-49 (1983); Bristol v. Dominion Nat. Bank, 153 Va. 71, 81, 149 S.E. 632, 635 (1929); Richmond R. Co. v. Richmond, Etc., 145 Va. 266, 299, 133 S.E. Z88, 898 (1926).
In Deal, the Commonwealth signed a contract containing an arbitration clause and thereafter actually submitted to arbitration. 224 Va. at 620, 299 S.E.2d at 347. When the plaintiff attempted to reduce the arbitration award to judgment, the Commonwealth asserted it did not have the power to enter into an arbitration agreement. We agreed with the Commonwealth's argument and further held it was not estopped from denying the validity of the contract, even though its agents had entered into it and had participated in arbitration. Id. at 623, 299 S.E.2d at 348-49. We thus held the Commonwealth was not bound by the contract.
Accordingly, we will reverse the judgment of the trial court and enter final judgment for the School Board.
Reversed and final judgment.