Beuning Family LP v. Cnty. of Stearns

• Decision Date: 25 July 2012
• Docket Number: Nos. A11–1479,A11–1480.,s. A11–1479
• Citation: 817 N.W.2d 122
• Parties: BEUNING FAMILY LP, petitioner, Respondent, v. COUNTY OF STEARNS, Relator.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

817 N.W.2d 122

BEUNING FAMILY LP, petitioner, Respondent,

v.COUNTY OF STEARNS, Relator.

Nos. A11–1479, A11–1480.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

July 25, 2012.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Minnesota Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure 103.03 applies only to appeals to the court of appeals and does not apply to appeals to the supreme court (clarifying Brookfield Trade Center, Inc. v. County of Ramsey, 609 N.W.2d 868 (Minn.2000)).

2. An order of the tax court denying a county's motion to dismiss as untimely a taxpayer's appeal under Minn.Stat. § 278.14 (2010) of the county's denial of the taxpayer's request for refund of taxes paid is not a final order that is reviewable by certiorari under Minn.Stat. § 271.10 (2010).

3. An order of the tax court denying a county's motion to dismiss as untimely a taxpayer's appeal under Minn.Stat. § 278.14 (2010) of the county's denial of the taxpayer's request for refund of taxes paid is not reviewable of right by the supreme court.

4. The supreme court's plenary power to decide questions of law does not create jurisdiction over an appeal from a decision of the tax court denying a county's motion to dismiss as untimely a taxpayer's appeal under Minn.Stat. § 278.14 (2010) of the county's denial of the taxpayer's request for refund of taxes paid, where appellate jurisdiction does not otherwise exist.

5. An order of the tax court limited to the proper classification of property for property tax purposes, and which does not determine the value of the property or the amount of property taxes properly assessed against the property, is not a final order and is not immediately reviewable by the supreme court under Minn.Stat. § 271.10.

David B. Galle, Stacy M. Lindstedt, Oppenheimer Wolff & Donnelly LLP, Minneapolis, MN, for respondent.

Janelle P. Kendall, Stearns County Attorney, Marcus Miller, Brenda L. Theis, Assistant County Attorneys, St. Cloud, MN, for relator.

OPINION

MEYER, Justice.

The threshold issue in each of these cases is our jurisdiction to review by certiorari an interlocutory decision of the tax court. We conclude that we lack jurisdiction in each case and therefore dismiss the writs of certiorari.

Respondent Beuning Family Limited Partnership (Beuning) is a part-owner of 8.92 acres of unimproved vacant land in LeSauk Township in Stearns County (the County). Before 2008, the County classified the property as residential nonhomestead for tax purposes, in accordance with its zoning. With the January 2008 assessment, the County changed the property's tax classification to commercial.

In May 2009, Beuning filed a petition under Minn.Stat. § 278.01 (2010), claiming the property was misclassified, unequally assessed, and overvalued. Because Beuning's petition was filed after the statutory filing deadline of April 30, the tax court dismissed the petition as untimely. Beuning Family Ltd. P'ship v. Cnty. of Stearns, No. 73–CV–09–5831, 2009 WL 4589795, at *2 (Minn. Tax Ct. Dec. 3, 2009); seeMinn.Stat. § 278.01, subd. 1(c) (requiring that a petition challenging an assessment be filed on or before April 30 of the year in which the tax becomes payable). The court declined to hear Beuning's claim of misclassification because Beuning had not filed a verified claim for refund of mistakenly billed taxes, as required by Minn.Stat. § 278.14 (2010) (providing that “[a] county must pay a refund of mistakenly billed tax ... upon verification of a claim made in a written application by the owner of the property”). Beuning Family, 2009 WL 4589795, at *3.

Beuning did not appeal from the tax court's dismissal of its May 2009 petition. Rather, in March 2010 Beuning filed a verified claim under Minn.Stat. § 278.14 for a refund of taxes paid in 2009. Beuning claimed that the property was misclassified for taxes payable in 2009. The County denied the refund claim a few weeks later. In May 2010, Beuning appealed to the district court from the County's denial of the refund claim pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 278.14, subd. 3.

After the district court transferred Beuning's section 278.14 appeal to the tax court, the County moved for partial summary judgment on four grounds: (1) that Beuning's May 2010 petition under section 278.14, seeking a refund of taxes paid in 2009, was untimely because it was not filed in the year in which the taxes were due and payable; (2) that because Beuning's petition under section 278.14 sought a refund of taxes paid for the same reasons advanced in Beuning's earlier petition under Minn.Stat. § 278.01, the petition under section 278.14 amounted to an improper attempt to appeal the tax court's dismissal of the earlier petition; (3) that Beuning's claim for refund had already been determined in the dismissal of Beuning's earlier petition; and (4) that the property was properly classified as commercial. The tax court denied the County's motion for partial summary judgment. In a second order, the tax court determined that there was no just reason for delay and directed entry of judgment under Minn. R. Civ. P. 54.02. The writ of certiorari for review of the tax court's order denying the County's motion to dismiss the section 278.14 appeal with respect to taxes payable in 2009 is matter A11–1479.

In the meantime, in April 2010 Beuning filed a timely petition under Minn.Stat. § 278.01 with respect to property taxes assessed in 2009 (payable in 2010), claiming that the property was overvalued, unequally assessed, illegally taxed, and improperly classified. In June 2011, the tax court ruled that the property was properly classified as residential nonhomestead, its original classification, but did not determine the value of the property for property tax purposes or the amount of taxes properly assessed against the property. In a second order, the court determined there was no just reason for delay and directed entry of judgment under Minn. R. Civ. P. 54.02. The writ of certiorari for review of the tax court's determination of the classification of the property for the 2009 assessment year is matter A11–1480.

Minnesota Statutes § 271.10, subd. 1 (2010), provides for our review by certiorari of “any final order of the Tax Court ... on the ground that the Tax Court was without jurisdiction, that the order of the Tax Court was not justified by the evidence or was not in conformity with law, or that the Tax Court committed any other error of law.” By order filed on September 23, 2011, we questioned our jurisdiction to hear these cases, stayed briefing on the merits, and requested supplemental briefing from the parties on the jurisdictional question.

Appeal No. A11–1479

The County asserts five grounds for our jurisdiction over the County's appeal in matter A11–1479. After consideration, we reject each stated ground.

Minn. R. Civ.App. P. 103.03

The County contends that the tax court's order denying the County's motion for summary judgment is reviewable under various provisions of Minn. R. Civ.App. P. 103.03, specifically, 103.03(a) (“a partial judgment entered pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. P. 54.02”), 103.03(g) (“a final order, decision or judgment affecting a substantial right made in an administrative or other special proceeding”), and 103.03(j) (“such other orders or decisions as may be appealable by statute or under the decisions of the Minnesota appellate courts”).

Rule 103.03, by its terms, applies to appeals to the court of appeals: “An appeal may be taken to the Court of Appeals....” It does not expressly apply to appeals to this court, much less to petitions for writs of certiorari filed with this court. The tax court's denial of the County's motion for partial summary judgment is not reviewable by our court under Minn. R. Civ.App. P. 103.03.

In asserting Minn. R. Civ.App. P. 103.03 as grounds for our jurisdiction in this case, the County relies on a footnote to our opinion in Brookfield Trade Center, Inc. v. County of Ramsey, 609 N.W.2d 868, 873 n. 6 (Minn.2000). In Brookfield, the county sought review by certiorari of a tax court decision denominated as “final” but granting only partial summary judgment to the taxpayer. Id. We noted that the tax court's order “did not fully dispose of the litigation because the issue of valuation remained for trial.” Id. at 873 n. 6. Accordingly, we held, “this case is not properly before this court pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 271.10, subd. 1.” Id.

We then proceeded to observe:

It also does not appear that this decision of the tax court satisfies any of the rules that might otherwise permit an appeal from an interlocutory ruling. SeeMinn. R. Civ. P. 54.02 (“When multiple claims for relief or multiple parties are involved in an action, the court may direct the entry of a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon express determination that there is no just reason for delay for the entry of judgment.”); Minn. R. Civ.App. P. 103.03(h) (providing that an appeal may be taken from an order denying a motion for summary judgment “if the trial court certifies that the question presented is important and doubtful”); Minn. R. Civ.App. P. 105 (providing for discretionary review of an order not otherwise appealable). Although we ... exercise our discretionary authority to adjudicate this appeal in the interests of justice and judicial economy, the tax court and litigants should not assume that future nonfinal orders will be reviewed by this court in the absence of compliance with an appropriate rule authorizing appeal.

Id. at 874 n. 6. By our comments, we intended only to suggest that an order granting partial summary judgment, even if rendered by a district court, would not be immediately appealable. We did not intend to suggest, even in dicta, that Minn. R. Civ.App. P. 103.03 authorizes our court to review an interlocutory decision of the tax court, and we so clarify our decision in Brookfield.

Minn.Stat. § 271.10

The County further contends that we can review the order of the tax court under Minn.Stat. § 271.10....