State ex rel. Conrad v. Managhan, 12072

• Decision Date: 07 June 1971
• Docket Number: No. 12072,12072
• Citation: 157 Mont. 335,485 P.2d 948
• Parties: STATE of Montana ex rel. Ed CONRAD et al., Relators, v. Ray MANAGHAN, Assessor of Flathead County, Montana et al., C. W. Reynolds, as Assessor of Lake County, Montana et al., Kay Ruth Baenen, as Assessor of Lincoln County, Montana et al., Mary K. Noonan, as Assessor of Mineral County, Montana et al., Paul J. Farlan, as Assessor of Sanders County, Montana et al., John C. Alley, J. Morley Cooper and Ray J. Wayrynen as members of Board of Equalization et al., Respondents.
• Court: Montana Supreme Court

Page 948

485 P.2d 948

157 Mont. 335

STATE of Montana ex rel. Ed CONRAD et al., Relators, v. Ray MANAGHAN, Assessor of Flathead County, Montana et al. C. W. Reynolds, as Assessor of Lake County, Montana et al. Kay Ruth Baenen, as Assessor of Lincoln County, Montana et al., Mary K. Noonan, as Assessor of Mineral County, Montana et al., Paul J. Farlan, as Assessor of Sanders County Montana et al., John C. Alley, J. Morley Cooper and Ray J Wayrynen as members of Board of Equalization et al., Respondents.

No. 12072.

Supreme Court of Montana.

Submitted June 2, 1971.

Decided June 7, 1971.

Risken & Scribner, A. William Scribner, argued, Helena, Robert N. Helding, argued, Missoula, for relators.

William A. Douglas, County Atty., argued, Libby, M. Dean Jellison, argued, Kalispell, E. Jene Bell argued, State Bd. of Equalization, Helena, James Oleson, County Atty., Kalispell, Richard P. Heinz, County Atty., Polson, Walter T. Murphy, County Atty., Superior, Alex C. Morrison, County Atty., Thompson Falls, for respondents.

PER CURIAM:

This is an original proceeding seeking a declaratory judgment and ancillary relief by injunction or other appropriate writ to compel valuation and assessment of timberlands for taxation in five counties of northwestern Montana as directed by the State Board of Equalization and to prohibit county tax officials from employing a different valuation and assessment.

Relators are ten owners of timberlands located in one or more of the five counties involved. They have brought the instant class action on behalf of themselves and all other owners of timberlands in the five counties. Respondents are the respective county assessors and boards of county commissioners in Flathead, Lake, Lincoln, Mineral, and Sanders counties. Also named as respondent is the State Board of Equalization.

The basic occurrences forming the background of the present suit are not in dispute. On October 9, 1967, the State Board of Equalization issued a directive setting forth a comprehensive formula for the computation of values of timberlands and prescribing the use of such formula as a basis for assessment of such lands for ensuing taxable years. This formula applied to all counties except Flathead which adopted a different system with the approval of the State Board of Equalization; this separate system resulted in assessments substantially in line with those obtained by the Board formula. In our view, the position of Flathead County in this appeal is no different from the other counties involved.

On or about September 5, 1969, the State Board of Equalization held a hearing in Missoula for the purpose of considering an increase in the assessment of timberlands. Thereafter on November 19, 1970, the State Board of Equalization issued a directive authorizing the counties to increase the values of timberlands by the addition of land values according to accessibility and topography classification as follows: favorable classification-an authorized increase of $1.65 per acre; average classification-an authorized increase of $1.00 per acre; difficult classification-an authorized increase of 40cents per acre. Under the provisions of the directive, the increases are authorized to be added to the assessed valuations computed by the previous formula and are to be applied for the tax year 1971.

The commissioners of the five northwestern Montana counties involved in the present action expressed their disapproval and rejection of this directive and have indicated their intention to increase the assessments at rates far higher than those authorized by the State Board of Equalization, to wit: favorable classification- an increase of $7.50 per acre; average classification-an increase of $4.50 per acre; and difficult classification-an increase of $1.50 per acre.

The crux of the counties' contention is that the November 19, 1970 directive of the State Board of Equalization authorizing the increases in valuations of timberland therein contained is not supported by the evidence adduced at the hearing of September 5, 1969 in Missoula; that the authorized increases are accordingly arbitrary and invalid; and therefore the counties are not required to conform to it. Additionally the counties claim that they are empowered by the provisions of sections 84-429.11 and 84-602, R.C.M.1947, to establish their own higher assessed valuations.

The foregoing facts are undisputed and control the disposition of the present controversy as a matter of law. The underlying legal issue posed by these facts is simply this: What are the respective powers and duties of the State Board of Equalization, on the one hand, and the boards of county commissioners of the affected counties, on the other hand, concerning the assessment of timberlands for taxation?

Before proceeding to decision of this ultimate legal issue, some preliminary procedural matters must be resolved. First, we hold that this Court should accept original jurisdiction of this proceeding because of the urgency of the situation and the need for speedy determination of the controversy. We cite the following cases as authority for the assumption of original jurisdiction under such circumstances: Forty-Second Legislative Assembly v. Lennon, Mont., 481 P.2d 330; State ex rel. Schultz-Lindsay v. Bd. of Equal., 145 Mont. 380, 403 P.2d 635; State ex rel. Livingstone v. Murray, 137 Mont. 557, 354 P.2d 552; Sawyer Stores, Inc. v. Mitchell, 103 Mont. 148, 62 P.2d 342.

Secondly, we hold that relators, as affected taxpayers, have standing to bring a declaratory judgment action concerning a tax controversy, and are not confined exclusively to payment of taxes under protest and a suit for recovery. Brophy Coal Co. v. Matthews, 125 Mont. 212, 233 P.2d 397; N. W. Imp. Co. v. Rosebud Co., 129 Mont. 412, 288 P.2d 657; State ex rel. Fulton v. District Court, 139 Mont. 573, 366 P.2d 435. A true class action for this purpose is authorized by Rule 23, M.R.Civ.P.

The powers and duties of the State Board of Equalization in the present controversy are defined in broad terms in Article XII, Sec. 15 of the Montana Constitution. There the State Board of Equalization is commanded to ...