concurring specially.
I am in full agreement with the majority opinion. I write specially to rhetorically ponder why the taxpayers of Codington County are financing an appeal, the subject of which appears to be solely for the benefit of ATY, a corporate hog producer.1
As noted by the majority, county’s zoning officer and the board of adjustment denied ATY’s request for a building permit to expand its commercial hog production facility. When the issue was subsequently presented to the county commissioners, they granted the building permit. The adversely affected adjoining landowner appealed to the circuit court, and the trial judge determined that issuance of the building permit would violate the county’s own zoning ordinances.
The troublesome thing to me is what then followed. County, not ATY, appealed the circuit court ruling to this Court. The county’s attorney (the state’s attorney) filed all of the appeal documents and the appellate briefs.2 Why was Codington County appealing? Where was ATY and its counsel?3
I appreciate that some confusion may have been caused by the inappropriate and unfortunate titling of the appeal before the circuit court as “Cordell v. Codington Court.”4 The appeal, which was taken pursuant to SDCL 7-8-27, should have been titled, “In the Matter of the Appeal of the Issuance of the Building Permit_” Nevertheless, erroneous titling of an action certainly does not change the status of the parties or their real interest in the subject litigation.
It was ATY, not Codington County, that was the interested party in this action and it, not the taxpayers, should be responsible for prosecuting and financing the appeal.
. To a very minor degree, state taxpayers are likewise affected, since the filing fee to our Court is exempt because county is the named appellant. SDCL 16-2-29.1.
. It is clear in the record before us that counsel for ATY appears to have had a minimal involvement, at best, in this appeal.
. Cordell was troubled by the same questions. After the County initiated its appeal, Cordell filed a notice and application for preemptive writ of mandamus with the trial court. Included in the notice was a request that the County be required "to discontinue the illegal lending of the name of Codington County to ATY FEEDER PIGS, INC. for purposes of prosecuting an appeal against the Petitioner." Neither ATY nor the County responded to Cordell’s claim that County was improperly involved in the appeal, and the trial court disposed of the application for a writ of mandamus on other grounds.
.For some unexplained reason, ATY participated before the circuit court amicus curiae rather than being involved as a named or interested party. Again, perhaps this was occasioned by the inappropriate titling of the action.