Opinion
Opinion By: Albert B. Chandler III, Attorney General; James M. Ringo, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
This matter comes to the Attorney General on appeal from the actions of Kentucky Land Title Agency, Inc. in response to Roger A. Turner's open records request for records related to the sale of a farm.
After receipt of Mr. Turner's letter of appeal and as authorized by KRS 61.880(1) and 40 KAR 1:030, Section 2, Ronald G. Mullen, President, Kentucky Land Title Agency, Inc., provided this office with a response to the issues raised in the appeal. In his response, Mr. Mullen advised that Kentucky Land Title Agency, Inc., is a private company and confirmed that the company did not derive at least twenty-five percent (25%) of its funds expended by it in the Commonwealth of Kentucky from state or local authority funds.
In this open records appeal, we address the threshold issue of whether the Open Records Act applies to the Kentucky Land Title Agency, Inc. For the reasons that follow, it is the conclusion of this office that the company is not a "public agency" as defined by KRS 61.870(1) and its records are exempt from public inspection under the Open Records Act.
This office has consistently recognized that a private company or corporation comes within the purview of the Open Records Act only if it derives at least 25% of its funds from state or local authority funds. 92-ORD-1114; OAG 88-61; OAG 81-377. Those opinions were premised on the following definition of "public agency" set out in KRS 61.870(1)(h):
Any body which derives at least twenty-five percent (25%) of its funds expended by it in the Commonwealth of Kentucky from state or local authority funds.
Since Kentucky Land Title Agency, Inc., does not derive at least twenty-five (25%) of its funds expended by it in the state from state or local funds, the private company does not fall within the definition of a "public agency" to which the Open Records Act applies. Accordingly, Kentucky Land Title Agency, Inc., is not subject to the provisions of the Open Record Act and its actions relative to Mr. Turner's open records request would not constitute a violation of the Act.