B. W. & Leo Harris Co. v. Dakota County

• Decision Date: 16 December 1955
• Docket Number: No. 36596,36596
• Citation: 74 N.W.2d 111,246 Minn. 20
• Parties: B.W. & LEO HARRIS COMPANY, Appellant, v. DAKOTA COUNTY, State of Minnesota, Respondent.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 111

74 N.W.2d 111

246 Minn. 20

B.W. & LEO HARRIS COMPANY, Appellant, v. DAKOTA COUNTY, State of Minnesota, Respondent.

No. 36596.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Dec. 16, 1955.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Assessment is the process of going forward from the time the property is listed; of viewing the property, determining its true and full value, entering that value on the book opposite the description, and entering the assessment in the assessment book and on the tabular statements for each book in correct balance. Held: Where the acts constituting an assessment have not been carried out and the property has been erroneously listed in the assessment books as being in the name of a city and thereby exempt, the property has been omitted in the assessment under M.S.A. § 273.02.

2. Under the facts as presented in this case the back assessment of the property in question by the county auditor was within the time permitted by § 273.02.

3. Section 429.071 governs supplemental assessments and reassessments for special assessments. Held: Under this statute property may not be back assessed for special assessments without notice and hearing as provided for in the original proceedings.

Leonard, Street & Deinard and Harold D. Field, Jr., Minneapolis, for appellant.

R. C. Nelsen, County Atty., Hastings, for respondent.

FRANK T. GALLAGHER, Justice.

Appeal from a judgment of the district court on January 14, 1955, against the appellant petitioner, B.W. & Leo Harris Company, in favor of respondent, Dakota County, Minnesota. The action came on for hearing before the trial court on a petition by the Harris Company under M.S.A. c. 278 for judgment that an attempted back assessment of petitioner's property and the taxes sought to be levied and collected against it be declared void. The case was tried on a stipulation of facts between the petitioner and respondents. The trial court after considering the evidence, the files and records, and arguments of counsel and pursuant to the stipulation found:

That the petitioner is a duly organized Minnesota corporation and has, since before 1948, been the owner of the west one-third of block 16 of the town (two city) of Hastings, Minnesota;

That in the real estate assessment books for Dakota County showing assessment of taxable real property in the city of Hastings for every even-numbered year said property is carried in the name of the city of Hastings and was designated as tax exempt for the years 1948, 1950, and 1952; that the said exemption was in recognition of a claim by the city of Hastings that it owned the property; and that at the time of the making and filing of the above referred to stipulation, the 1954 assessment book had not yet been made up.

That for many years prior to and until February 8, 1954, and also including the years 1948 through 1953, the property in question was carried in the tax list of real estate in the assessment books for the city of Hastings, prepared annually by the county auditor for Dakota county, as being assessed in the name of the city of Hastings and as being tax exempt; that prior to February 8, 1954, no taxes or assessments were extended against the property on the tax list for the years 1948 through 1953, inclusive, with the exception of a special assessment for street lighting in 1952 in the amount of $79.78.

That as a result of an action to quiet title to the property in question brought by the petitioner in the trial court and pursuant to a decision and mandate of the Minnesota supreme court a decree was entered August 7, 1953, establishing the petitioner's title to and ownership of the property.

That on December 9, 1953, the deputy county assessor of Dakota county submitted to the Dakota county auditor a memorandum notifying the auditor that this property was not assessed in the years 1947 through 1953, inclusive, and that it should be added as omitted property and that in accordance with M.S.A. § 273.02 it was the duty of the county auditor to extend against the property on the tax list for the current year all arrearage of taxes properly accruing against it; that the memorandum further purported to classify the property as urban and nonhomestead and to place upon it a full and true valuation of $3,000 and an assessed valuation of $1,200.

That on or about February 8, 1954, the Dakota county auditor acting in response to the memorandum from the assessor modified the tax list which he had already prepared for the year 1953 with respect to this property by inserting petitioner's name in the column of the tax list showing in whose name the property is assessed, and by inserting in the column for assessed valuation the figure $1,200, and by inserting the following entries in the columns for street lighting assessments and total taxes:

                      Assessment   Total
                1948              $225.58
                1949              $224.28
                1950              $221.26
                1951              $227.65
                1952    $79.78    $309.66
                1953    $76.10    $303.49
                

That on or about May 14, 1954, the Dakota county treasurer issued to the petitioner a statement of real estate taxes on said property for the year 1953 showing a total of taxes due, for the year 1953 and payable in 1954, of $1,511.92.

That on May 28, 1954, W. A. Schultz, one of the judges of the district court in which the trial was held, made an order permitting petitioner to file its petition for a determination of the legality of taxes levied against its real estate without, as a condition precedent thereto, paying to the county treasurer any part of the taxes.

The trial court then concluded that the petitioner was not entitled to the relief prayed for in its petition; that the Dakota county auditor's assessment of petitioner's property showing a total of taxes for the year 1953, payable in 1954, of $1,511.92, was in all respects valid and legal; and that the real property in question was liable for taxes in the sum of $1,511.92, and ordered judgment accordingly. In its memorandum attached to its order the court stated in part:

'* * * In the instant case the property was carried on the assessment books but was, it appears, erroneously treated as being exempt. Clearly it was thus 'omitted in the assessment' for the years in question, within the meaning of the statute under which we are here proceeding.'

It is the position of the petitioner:

(a) That § 273.02 did not authorize the back assessments and taxation in that the property was not omitted in the assessment of any of the years 1948 through 1953.

(b) That even if the property was omitted the back assessments are void because not entered and extended within the time permitted by the statute.

Petitioner further contends that in any event the street lighting assessments for the years 1952 and 1953 are void.

1. Section 273.02, subd. 1, so far as is pertinent, reads as follows:

'If any real or personal property be omitted in the assessment of any year or years, and the property thereby escape taxation, * * * when such omission * * * is discovered the county auditor shall in the case of omitted property enter such property on the assessment and tax books for the year or years omitted, * * *; and he shall assess the property, and extend against the same on the tax list for the current year all arrearage of taxes properly accruing against it, * * *. If any tax on any property liable to taxation is prevented from being collected for any year or years by reason of any erroneous proceedings, * * * or other cause, the amount of such tax which such property should have paid shall be added to the tax on such property for the current year.'

Petitioner argues that the land was not omitted in the assessment because it was carried on the tax list in the city's name and as being, therefore, exempt instead of being carried in the petitioner's name and at a valuation.

An examination of c. 273, under the caption 'Taxes; Listing, Assessment', indicates that listing and assessment are two separate and distinct acts. The following excerpts from this chapter are pertinent:

§ 273.01. 'All real property subject to taxation shall be Listed and Assessed every even-numbered year with reference to its value * * *, and all real property becoming taxable and intervening year shall be Listed and Assessed with reference to its value * * *. Personal property shall be Listed and Assessed * * *.' (Italics supplied.)

§ 273.03. '* * * The list of real property Becoming subject to assessment and taxation every odd-numbered year may be appended to the personal property assessment book.' (Italics supplied.)

§ 273.08. '* * * If any property is Listed or Assessed on or after the fourth Monday of June, and before the return of the assessor's books, the same shall be as legal and binding as it Listed and Assessed before that time.' (Italics supplied.)

It is clear that the legislature contemplated...