Appeal of National Bank of Commerce of Tulsa
| Decision Date | 17 September 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 37417,37417 |
| Parties | Matter of the Appeal of the NATIONAL BANK OF COMMERCE OF TULSA, from an Order of the County Board of Equalization of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. A party in an appeal from an order of the county equalization board to the district court, who has filed the written notice of appeal provided for by 68 O.S.1951 § 15.42 cannot be deprived of his appeal by failure of the county clerk to make the required transcript and to file the same with the district court clerk or deliver the same to appellant for such filing within the time fixed in said statutory provision.
2. Where, pending on appeal to the district court from an order of the county equalization board fixing the assessed valuation for 1953 tax purposes, the county assessor, without notice to the taxpayer, increases the valuation for 1954 above the assessed valuation for the year 1952, the taxpayer was permitted by 68 O.S.1951 § 15.41 to file a protest to such assessment at any time prior to the adjournment of the board.
3. By sec. 257, O.S.1931, 12 Okl.St.Ann. § 79, trial courts are vested with wide discretion in consolidating different causes.
4. In assessing property for ad valorem tax purposes, uniformity and equality required by the 14th Amendment to the Federal Constitution takes precedence over the requirement of Art. X, sec. 8 of the Oklahoma Constitution that property be assessed 'at its fair cash value' where compliance with both provisions is impossible.
5. In a trial de novo in the district court on appeal from the decision of the county equalization board denying a protest to the assessed valuation of taxable property as fixed by the county assessor, the issues to be tried are those raised by the protest filed with said board.
6. In a trial de novo in the district court on appeal from the decision of the county equalization board denying a protest to the assessed valuation of taxable property fixed by the county assessor, the burden of proof rests upon the protestant because he is the party seeking affirmative relief.
7. The judgment of the district court fixing the assessed valuation of property for ad valorem tax purposes, rendered on appeal and trial de novo from an order of the county equalization board denying taxpayer's protest to assessed valuation thereof as fixed by the county assessor, will not be vacated by this court on appeal for insufficiency of evidence to support it where said judgment is not against the clear weight thereof.
Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County; Lewis Johnson, District Judge.
Appeal by the County Assessor of Tulsa County from a judgment of the District Court on trial de novo on apeal by the taxpayer from a judgment and order of the County Equalization Board denying in whole or in part, protests to the assessed valuation for ad valorem tax purposes as fixed by the said County Assessor on the lot and bank building of the National Bank of Commerce of Tulsa. Judgment of the District Court affirmed.
J. Howard Edmondson, County Atty. of Tulsa County, Donald D. Cameron, Chief Civil Asst. County Atty., Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.
J. C. Pinkerton, Tulsa, for defendant in error.
This is an appeal by the Tulsa County Assessor from a judgment of the district court of Tulsa County, fixing the valuation of the building owned and occupied by the National Bank of Commerce of Tulsa for ad valorem tax purposes for the years 1953 and 1954. The protest and subsequent proceedings as to the assessment for each of said years constituted a separate matter on appeal but the two appeals were consolidated in the district court over objection of the assessor. The parties will be referred to as 'assessor' and 'bank.'
On May 1, 1953, the bank filed a protest, denominated 'complaint,' with the county equalization board, protesting the action of the assessor in raising the assessed valuation of its real property from $154,810 to $204,630 for the year 1953. The protest was heard and denied by the said equalization board. On July 1, 1953, the bank filed written notice of appeal from said decision of the board to the district court. The transcript prepared and certified by the county clerk, was filed in the district court on September 22, 1953.
On June 15, 1954, the bank filed a 'Notice of Protest' with the county clerk, as exofficio clerk of the county equalization board, protesting the action of the assessor in raising the assessed valuation of said real estate to $204,630 for the year 1954. The protest was heard and the assessed valuation reduced to $181,320 by said equalization board on June 30, 1954. On July 8, 1954, the bank filed written notice of appeal from said decision of the board to the district court. The transcript, prepared and certified by the county clerk, was filed in the district court on April 7, 1955. On July 9, 1954, the assessor filed written notice of appeal from said decision of the board to the district court and, on the same day, filed a petition in said court in the nature of a petition in error. Transcript, prepared and certified by the county clerk, was filed in this latter case in the district court on April 6, 1955.
On April 8, 1955, the assessor filed motion to dismiss the appeal from decision on the 1953 valuation In the appeal filed by him on the 1954 valuation, the assessor filed, on April 12, 1955, a motion to remand the same with directions to the board to withdraw its order reducing the valuation and to dismiss the protest because 'the complaint of the taxpayer was not filed with the Secretary of the Board within the time provided by statute, and that the Board was without jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and to make any finding and order whatsoever upon the basis thereof.'
On April 11, 1955, the motion to dismiss was denied, the motion to remand was denied and all three cases were consolidated. On March 28, 1956, judgment was rendered, fixing the assessed valuation of said property for ad valorem tax purposes for each of said years, 1953 and 1954, at $133,561.35. From that judgment, the assessor has perfected this appeal.
The first proposition presented is that the trial court erred in overruling the assessor's motion to dismiss the appeal from the board's action upon the 1953 assessment. That part of the statute (68 O.S.1951 § 15.42), providing the mothod of appeal which is here applicable, is as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. $1,267.00
...will this court disturb a decision made on this point); Puckett v. Cook, 1978 OK 108, ¶ 17, 586 P.2d 721, 723; Appeal of National Bank of Commerce of Tulsa, 1957 OK 203, ¶ 13, 316 P.2d 175, 179 (when it is shown that no substantial right of a party has been prejudiced by the consolidation, ......
-
Boy Scouts of America, Inc. v. Thompson
...judgments were affirmed. Several of these decisions are Appeal of National Bank of Tulsa, Okl., 312 P.2d 495; Appeal of National Bank of Commerce of Tulsa, Okl., 316 P.2d 175; and Appeal of Boy Scouts of America, Okl., 317 P.2d 262. The property valuations of appellant's building for the ye......
-
Davis v. McCarty
...used this identical language in other cases involving this subject matter. See fourth paragraph of syllabus in Appeal of National Bank of Commerce of Tulsa, Okl., 316 P.2d 175; third paragraph of syllabus in Appeal of Thompson Building Company, Okl., 316 P.2d 179; fourth paragraph of syllab......
-
Appeal of Billings Community Elevator, Inc.
...§ 2461, this court held in Appeal of National Bank of Tulsa (1957), Okl., 312 P.2d 495, and in the Matter of Appeal of National Bank of Commerce of Tulsa (1957), Okl., 316 P.2d 175, that: 'In a trial de novo in the district court on appeal from the decision of the county equalization board ......