OPI Corp. v. Pima County
| Decision Date | 15 November 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. TX,TX |
| Citation | 176 Ariz. 625,863 P.2d 917 |
| Parties | OPI CORPORATION v. PIMA COUNTY; Arizona Department of Revenue. 92-01125. |
| Court | Arizona Tax Court |
The issue in this case is whether a party may be relieved of a final judgment under Rule 60(c)(2) based upon a fact which arose after entry of judgment. He may not.
On October 21, 1992, OPI Corporation (OPI), the taxpayer, filed an action contesting the 1992 valuation of property located in Pima County. OPI paid the taxes for the first half of 1992, but before the second half taxes were due on May 3, 1993, the parties settled and the Court signed a judgment on April 16, 1993. Neither the settlement agreement nor the judgment said anything about payment of the second half taxes. OPI did not pay the second half taxes and they became delinquent. 1
The Government now asks this Court for relief from its stipulated judgment pursuant to Rule 60(c)(2) claiming OPI's failure to pay the second half taxes is "newly discovered evidence." Because of the failure to pay, and the fact A.R.S. § 42-177(E) requires a taxpayer to pay its taxes before it can maintain an appeal, the Government argues the Court lost or never had jurisdiction to sign the final judgment and that judgment must now be vacated.
OPI argues there can be no retroactive loss of jurisdiction under section 42-177(E) once a final judgment is signed--even when the taxpayer does not later pay its second half taxes. The Court agrees with OPI; the judgment will not be vacated.
Rule 60(c)(2) of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure provides a court may relieve a party from a final judgment based on "newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(d)...." It is well settled evidence must have existed at the time of trial or judgment before it can qualify as newly discovered evidence. Rogers v. Ogg, 101 Ariz. 161, 163, 416 P.2d 594, 596 (1966).
The Government's "newly discovered evidence" is an affidavit showing after the final judgment was entered OPI failed to pay the second half of its 1992 taxes. The Government argues this is "newly discovered evidence" because it was a fact not discoverable until the May 3rd payment deadline passed; after entry of the judgment. While it is true the Government could not have known in April whether OPI would pay the second half taxes due in May, the Government could, and should, have anticipated an untimely or nonpayment and entered into its settlement negotiations and stipulated judgment with that in mind. Nowhere is this consideration reflected in the Judgment or Stipulation of Judgment presented to this Court.
The Government has not presented this Court with any evidence discovered after entry of the judgment which existed at the time the judgment was entered. Thus, the Government has not presented any evidence which qualifies as "newly discovered evidence" under Rule 60(c)(2). Consequently, the Government is not entitled to relief from the final judgment entered in April.
Section 42-177(E) provides in pertinent part:
E. All taxes levied and assessed against property on which an appeal has been filed by the owner thereof shall be paid under protest prior to the date that tax becomes delinquent.... If such taxes are not paid prior to becoming delinquent ... the court shall dismiss the appeal.
When interpreting a statute, this Court looks primarily to the language of the statute itself. When that language expresses a clear unequivocal standard, the Court will interpret the statute accordingly, and look no further for guidance. Rio Rico Properties v. Santa Cruz County, 172 Ariz. 80, 834 P.2d 166 (1992). This standard seems rather clear here.
The Government asserts "[w]here the taxes at issue are not paid timely, the appropriate resolution of the case is by dismissal." That is appropriate because that is what the statute requires. However, as to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walliser v. May
...This was not newly discovered evidence because it did not exist at the time of the custody hearing. See OPI Corp. v. Pima County, 176 Ariz. 625, 626-27, 863 P.2d 917, 918-19 (Tax 1993) (holding "evidence must have existed at the time of trial or judgment before it can qualify as newly disco......
-
Leas v. Leas
...have existed at the time oftrial" and cannot include events occurring after entry of judgment. OPI Corp. v. Pima Cnty., 176 Ariz. 625, 626-27, 863 P.2d 917, 918-19 (Ariz. Tax Ct. 1993) (denying relief under Rule 60(c)(2) and holding that the taxpayer's failure to pay the second half of taxe......