Bernalillo County v. Ambell, 12665

• Decision Date: 19 May 1980
• Docket Number: No. 12665,12665
• Citation: 611 P.2d 218,1980 NMSC 62,94 N.M. 395
• Parties: COUNTY OF BERNALILLO; David M. Santillanes, Robert M. Hawk, Wray Simmons, James Paxton Morris, and Juven C. Sanchez, being the Board of County Commissioners of Bernalillo County, New Mexico and Timothy Eichenberg, Treasurer of Bernalillo County, New Mexico, Petitioners, v. AMBELL, a New Mexico Venture, Respondent.
• Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

Page 218

611 P.2d 218

94 N.M. 395

COUNTY OF BERNALILLO; David M. Santillanes, Robert M. Hawk,

Wray Simmons, James Paxton Morris, and Juven C. Sanchez,

being the Board of County Commissioners of Bernalillo

County, New Mexico and Timothy Eichenberg, Treasurer of

Bernalillo County, New Mexico, Petitioners, v. AMBELL, a New Mexico Venture, Respondent.

No. 12665.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

May 19, 1980.

[94 NM 395] Joe C. Diaz, Bernalillo County Atty., Kenneth A. Hunt, Albuquerque, for petitioners.

Johnson & Lanphere, Floyd D. Wilson, Albuquerque, for respondent.

OPINION

EASLEY, Justice.

Ambell filed a complaint requesting a refund of taxes paid for the year 1977. Its motion for summary judgment was granted. The defendants, the County of Bernalillo and others (County), appealed this ruling to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court. We granted certiorari and now reverse the Court of Appeals.

At issue is whether the ten per cent limit on property tax increases, established by Section 7-36-17, N.M.S.A. 1978, but since repealed by N.M. Laws 1979, ch. 268, section 3, applies to property which increased in property tax valuation because of a change from agricultural to non-agricultural use.

The subject property was valued at $648.00 for tax year 1976 pursuant to Section 7-36-20, N.M.S.A. 1978. This "Green Belt" law establishes an exception to the general mode of property valuations for tax purposes for agricultural lands giving the owners a dramatic tax-break. This law provides for application to be made to the county assessor for the exemption. Ambell had obtained the exemption for the 1976 tax year. However, in 1977 no such application was made and the assessor valued the property at $419,706.00 pursuant to Section 7-36-15(B) N.M.S.A. 1978. This statute provides that valuation of property such as this for tax purposes is its market value. Both parties agree that the actual market value of the property was the same for both 1976 and 1977, i. e., $419,706.00. Ambell paid the taxes on the increased valuation and now seeks a refund.

Section 7-36-17, providing the ten per cent limitation on increases in valuation of certain property for property taxation purposes, reads:

A. The limitation upon increases in valuation of property for property taxation purposes provided in Subsection B of this section shall apply only to property that is valued for property taxation purposes under Subsection B of Section 7-36-15 NMSA 1978 using the market value as determined by sales of comparable property method of evaluation.

B. For property described in Subsection A of this section, its value for property taxation purposes in a property tax year shall not exceed the value determined for it in the previous property tax year by an amount equal to ten per cent of the value determined for that previous property tax year.

C. The limitation on property value increase described in Subsection B of this section shall not apply to any increase in valuation from the preceding property tax year arising from:

(1) the addition of improvements, whether by declaration of the property owner or user or any other action including the action of a county assessor to add previously omitted improvements, or the remodeling or renovation of existing improvements;

(2) any rezoning or similar action of a governmental body that results in a change of permitted use of the property;

(3) division of the property into two or more parcels for any purpose; or

(4) any other factor resulting in an increase in value other than appreciation resulting from market conditions. (Emphasis added.)

The County asserts that the change of valuation for tax purposes from valuation on the basis of agricultural use to market value determined by comparable sales of non-agricultural land was an exception to the ten per cent limitation on property tax increases pursuant to Section 7-36-17(C)(4) because it constituted a "factor resulting in an increase in value other than appreciation resulting from market conditions." The County claims that Ambell's 1977 taxes were properly calculated by reference to its property's full $419,706.00 market value and that it is not entitled to any refund.

But the Court of Appeals agreed with Ambell that the limit applied to its property and that Ambell was entitled to a refund of the property tax paid in 1977 which exceeded ten per cent over the tax Ambell paid in 1976. The Court of Appeals stated that the County failed to distinguish between the statutory language of "increase in valuation" in 7-36-17(C) and "increase in value" in 7-36-17(C)(4). The Court of Appeals reasoned that "valuation" refers to valuation for property tax purposes and "value" refers to actual market value of the property.

That court ruled that exceptions to the applicability of the ten per cent limitation all contemplated increases in the actual market value of the property as opposed to a change in classification that would affect the basis for taxation. Since the property's value here did not increase, only its valuation for property tax purposes because of the change in use, the Court of Appeals concluded that the ten per cent limitation applied.

In its opinion, the Court of Appeals relies on Addis v. Santa Fe Cty. Valuation Protests Bd., 91 N.M. 165, 571 P.2d 822 (Ct.App.1977). We think this reliance is misplaced. In...