Thanks to a little-publicized part of the latest state budget deal, “For Sale” signs are going to be going up on vacant school buildings across the state.

In an effort to give California schools a little something to make up for grabbing billions from educational funding to close the state’s budget gap, the Legislature agreed last month to suspend the rules that strictly limit how school districts can spend the money from the sale of surplus classroom buildings.

In the past, if a district sold a school building, money from the sale generally could only be used for more construction or one-time maintenance. The new rules toss those limits out and let that money go into the district’s general fund, where it can be used for one-time purchases.

But, like Cinderella’s wardrobe, there’s a time limit on the state’s generosity. On Jan. 1, 2012, the new rules disappear and school districts will once again be bound by the old restrictions.

While this is good news for cash-strapped school districts and their real estate agents, it could also be an unexpected bonanza for the attorneys who will be dealing with the inevitable snarls the new rules will bring.

With the clock already ticking on the new rules, districts will be under the gun not only to dispose of the surplus property they already have, but also to shut down unnecessary school sites so that they can be declared surplus and put on the block.

Closing schools is never easy for a district, with students, parents and teachers typically up in arms. But when those schools are being shut down fast so they can be sold to the highest bidder, well, that’s a guaranteed magnet for lawsuits.

There’s also likely to be plenty of discussion – both in and out of courtrooms — over what exactly districts can now do with the money from property sales.

At its best, the state Education Code is a slippery beast, chockfull of dense, often opaque verbiage that has kept lawyers in business for decades (If you want a sample – and this isn’t recommended – take a look at Education Code section 17455 and following to see just how complicated the rules on school property sales can be).

The new rules try to spell out exactly how this new money can be spent. It requires each school board to declare in advance just how it will use the cash and describe why it “will not result in ongoing fiscal obligations for the school district.”

The reason for the rule is clear enough and one the Legislature should have paid more attention to when the state treasury was swelling during the dotcom boom.

If you use this one-time money to pay for ongoing programs, expanded services or the light bill, what happens when the money is gone but the expenses remain? The state is still trying to work that one out.

On a more political note, there’s always been a concern among Republicans that if schools get more money, they’ll use it to raise teacher salaries first and improve other parts of the education system second. When Republican Gov. Pete Wilson boosted school spending in the mid-1990s, for example, one of the reasons he designated that money for reducing class size was to ensure that it wouldn’t go to teachers.

That’s one reason the Education Code says that districts can’t spend the money from property sales for salaries.

But as any group dealing with money has found — campaign finance reform types please note — if there’s cash out there, politicians and government types will find a way to get it.

Let’s say, for example, that a district sells a school site and uses the money to outfit a new computer lab. That’s a perfectly fine use for the cash.

But what if the district already had been planning to upgrade those computers and had even set aside money for it? That general fund money now doesn’t have to go to the computer lab and can be used to boost salaries for teachers and administrators. Legal? That’s why lawyers were invented.

The new rules can provide some much-needed financial help for districts that have seen their enrollment plummet and schools can bring. But getting it isn’t going to be easy.

John Wildermuth is a longtime writer on California politics.