Board of County Com'rs of Johnson County v. Duffy, 74015
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Kansas |
| Citation | 259 Kan. 500,912 P.2d 716 |
| Docket Number | No. 74015,74015 |
| Parties | BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF JOHNSON COUNTY, Kansas, et al., Appellants, v. Susan K. DUFFY, Acting Director of Property Valuation, Division of Property Valuation, Kansas Department of Revenue, Appellee. |
| Decision Date | 08 March 1996 |
Page 716
al., Appellants,
v.
Susan K. DUFFY, Acting Director of Property Valuation,
Division of Property Valuation, Kansas Department
of Revenue, Appellee.
Page 717
1. The general rule is that an appellate court does not decide moot questions or render advisory opinions. The mootness doctrine is one of court policy which recognizes that it is the function of a judicial tribunal to determine real controversies relative to the legal rights of persons and properties which are actually involved in the particular case properly brought before it and to adjudicate those rights in such manner that the determination will be operative, final, and conclusive.
2. An appellate court may sometimes elect to entertain issues which, although moot, are subjects of real controversy and include issues of statewide interest and importance. Where a particular issue, although moot, is one capable of repetition and one of public importance, an appellate court may consider the appeal and render an opinion.
3. The Kansas Department of Property Valuation (DPV) is empowered by K.S.A.1994 Supp. 79-1476 to administer and supervise a statewide program of reappraisal of real property within the state, with each county appraiser reappraising all of the real property in the county pursuant to guidelines and timetables prescribed by the DPV and updating those appraisals on an annual basis. K.S.A.1994 Supp. 79-1476 also requires the DPV to make an annual determination of the value of land within each of the various classes of land devoted to agricultural use within each county and to furnish this determination to county appraisers who will then apply the value applicable to such land according to these valuation schedules.
4. K.S.A. 74-2439 empowers the Board of Tax Appeals (BOTA) to act as the state board of equalization, as provided by K.S.A. 79-1409. Generally, the power conferred by K.S.A. 79-1409 requires BOTA to equalize the valuation and assessment of property throughout the state and grants BOTA the power to equalize the assessment of all property in this state between persons, firms, or corporations of the same assessment district, between cities and townships of the same county, and between the different counties of the state and the property assessed by the director of the DPV in the first instance. Nothing contained in the provisions of K.S.A. 74-2439 and K.S.A. 79-1409 authorizes BOTA to order a statewide reappraisal of agricultural property.
[259 Kan. 501] 5. BOTA is a creature of the legislature. Its authority and power is only such as is expressly or impliedly given by legislative enactment. If it attempts to exercise jurisdiction over subject matter not conferred by the legislature, its orders with respect thereto are without authority of law and void.
6. The limited power conferred on BOTA under the provisions of K.S.A.1994 Supp. 79-1413a allows BOTA to intercede in cases where property within a county is not
Page 718
correctly appraised according to the law and the schedules promulgated by the DPV. Promulgation of new valuation schedules as provided for by K.S.A.1994 Supp. 79-1476 is a matter solely within the power and authority of the DPV.Appeal from Shawnee district court, Terry L. Bullock, Judge. Opinion filed March 8, 1996. Affirmed.
David M. Cooper, Assistant County Counselor, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellants.
William E. Waters, of the Kansas Department of Revenue, argued the cause and was on the briefs for appellees.
Richard Rodewald, of Eudora, was on the brief for amicus curiae, pro se.
Rebecca A. Sanders, General Counsel, was on the brief for amicus curiae Board of Tax Appeals.
M.J. Willoughby, Assistant Attorney General, and Carla J. Stovall, Attorney General, were on the brief for amicus curiae State of Kansas.
DAVIS, Justice:
The question posed by this appeal is whether the Board of Tax Appeals (BOTA) possesses the statutory authority to order a statewide reappraisal of agricultural property. Johnson County Board of County Commissioners and Paul A. Welcome, Johnson County appraiser, appealed from a Shawnee County District Court decision (1) denying in case No. 95-CV-158 their request for an order of mandamus requiring the Kansas Department of Property Valuation (DPV) to comply with the orders of BOTA to perform a statewide reappraisal of agricultural land and (2) holding that the Shawnee County District Court in case No. 92-CV-796 "has jurisdiction of the entire real estate appraisal system extant in Kansas under the current consent decree."
[259 Kan. 502] On January 31, 1994, the then-director of the DPV, David C. Cunningham, filed a complaint with BOTA, stating that the current statewide agricultural land values were not defensible. The director asked BOTA to order him to reappraise the agricultural land values. BOTA entered such an order, requiring the DPV to complete the reappraisal of agricultural land by December 1, 1994, so that the new values could be used in 1995.
On December 1, 1994, however, the DPV appeared before BOTA and requested permission to certify the 1994 agricultural real estate values for proposed 1995 values. The DPV explained that while the new values were based on new data more defensible than the 1994 values, the new values were not as defensible as the director would want them to be. Thus, the DPV asked BOTA to modify its earlier order and permit the director to use the 1994 values for 1995.
In response to this request, BOTA appointed an independent appraiser to review the data and issue a recommendation as to whether the 1994 values or values based on the new 1995 data should be used. The appraiser concluded that values based on the new data, with certain modifications, should be used for 1995. BOTA, therefore, denied the DPV request to modify its earlier order and further denied a petition for reconsideration filed by the DPV.
On February 8, 1995, the Board of Commissioners of Johnson County and Paul A. Welcome, Johnson County appraiser, filed a motion for a peremptory order of mandamus. In their motion, the petitioners asked the district court to require the DPV to release the 1995 agricultural land values as mandated by the BOTA order in time for the county to provide notice of the values as required by law.
Upon the motion to transfer filed by the Director of the DPV, the Shawnee County District Court transferred but did not consolidate the petitioners' petition for writ of mandamus, case No. 95-CV-158, with an earlier 1992 case styled State of Kansas, ex rel. Stephan v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue (case No. 92-CV-796). This latter case involved an order entered by the Shawnee County District Court consistent with the consent of all parties to implement [259 Kan. 503] a plan for the correction of problems relating to the valuation of real property throughout the state. The petitioners were not, and are not now, parties in case No. 92-CV-796. Indeed, as noted by the trial court in its memorandum decision,
Page 719
Johnson County would not be an appropriate party to questions involving statewide property appraisal concerns. See State ex. rel. Stephan v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 253 Kan. 412, Syl. p 5, 856 P.2d 151 (1993) (appellate review denying intervention in case No. 92-CV-796).The petitioners'...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Raiburn, 95,908.
...decide moot questions or render advisory opinions.'" 38 Kan.App.2d at 705, 171 P.3d 654 (quoting Board of Johnson County Comm'rs v. Duffy, 259 Kan. 500, Syl. ¶ 1, 912 P.2d 716 [1996]). He argues that a fugitive case differs from a moot Raiburn's interpretation of the quoted language removes......
-
Baker v. Hayden, 117,989
...though defendant had completed serving the underlying sentences before case was heard on appeal); Johnson County Commissioners v. Duffy , 259 Kan. 500, 912 P.2d 716 (1996) (applying exception for issues capable of repetition and of statewide importance to decide otherwise moot question of w......
-
State v. Roat, s. 113
...; Sheila A. v. Finney , 253 Kan. 793, 796-97, 861 P.2d 120 (1993) (mootness is jurisdictional); Board of County Commissioners v. Duffy , 259 Kan. 500, 504, 912 P.2d 716 (1996) (mootness is court policy); Smith v. Martens , 279 Kan. 242, Syl. ¶ 1, 106 P.3d 28 (2005) (mootness is court policy......
-
State v. Dumars, 96,261.
...v. Sierra, 30 Kan.App.2d 1041, 1046, 53 P.3d 1234, rev. denied 275 Kan. 965 (2002) (citing Board of Johnson County Comm'rs v. Duffy, 259 Kan. 500, 504, 912 P.2d 716 Mootness is not a question of jurisdiction, and the courts have routinely acknowledged two exceptions to the rule. First, wher......
-
Baker v. Hayden, 117,989
...though defendant had completed serving the underlying sentences before case was heard on appeal); Johnson County Commissioners v. Duffy , 259 Kan. 500, 912 P.2d 716 (1996) (applying exception for issues capable of repetition and of statewide importance to decide otherwise moot question of w......
-
State v. Raiburn, 95,908.
...decide moot questions or render advisory opinions.'" 38 Kan.App.2d at 705, 171 P.3d 654 (quoting Board of Johnson County Comm'rs v. Duffy, 259 Kan. 500, Syl. ¶ 1, 912 P.2d 716 [1996]). He argues that a fugitive case differs from a moot Raiburn's interpretation of the quoted language removes......
-
State v. Roat, s. 113
...; Sheila A. v. Finney , 253 Kan. 793, 796-97, 861 P.2d 120 (1993) (mootness is jurisdictional); Board of County Commissioners v. Duffy , 259 Kan. 500, 504, 912 P.2d 716 (1996) (mootness is court policy); Smith v. Martens , 279 Kan. 242, Syl. ¶ 1, 106 P.3d 28 (2005) (mootness is court policy......
-
State v. Dumars, 96,261.
...v. Sierra, 30 Kan.App.2d 1041, 1046, 53 P.3d 1234, rev. denied 275 Kan. 965 (2002) (citing Board of Johnson County Comm'rs v. Duffy, 259 Kan. 500, 504, 912 P.2d 716 Mootness is not a question of jurisdiction, and the courts have routinely acknowledged two exceptions to the rule. First, wher......