Brown v. Hansen, 24688
| Decision Date | 10 January 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 24688,24688 |
| Citation | 177 Colo. 39,493 P.2d 1086 |
| Parties | J. Norman BROWN et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. Herbert H. HANSEN et al., Defendants in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Waldo & Waldo, Ralph E. Waldo, Jr., Greeley, for plaintiffs in error.
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., John P. Moore, Deputy Atty. Gen., Denver, for defendants in error John A. Lvoe, Bryon (Andy) Anderson, John P. Proctor, Palmer L. Burch, Duke W. Dunbar, as Members of the State Bd. of Equalization State of Colo., and Raymond E. Carper, Property Tax Administrator.
James H. Shelton Greeley, for defendants in error Herbert H. Hansen, County Assessor, and Francis M. Louistalet, County Treasurer.
Samuel S. Telep, Greeley, for defendants in error Marshall H. Anderson, Glenn K. Billings, Harry S. Ashley as County Com'r, and Members of the Weld County Bd. of Equalization.
In this action the plaintiffs sought determinations that the county assessor assessed farm lands improperly; that the assessor failed to give proper notice of assessment and improperly conducted protest hearings; that the county commissioners in reviewing the action of the assessor gave improper notice of hearing, illegally conducted their hearings and failed to give sufficient notice of their decision; and that state authorities erroneously approved the assessor's valuation. The trial court sustained motions to dismiss the complaint. We affirm.
The plaintiffs did not seek judicial review of the acts of the assessor and the county commissioners as provided by statute. 1965 Perm.Supp., C.R.S.1963, 137--8--6. That statute requires that, as a condition of judicial review, the appealing taxpayer pay the full amount of the taxes levied on his property. Instead, the action was brought under the Rules of Civil Procedure. This, they contend, was proper because late notices given by the assessor and county commissioners 'caused a break in the taxpayers' chain of statutory procedures for relief,' and because, unless the requested relief is granted, they will be deprived of property without due process of law.
We rule on the procedural point and do not reach the substantive allegations. We hold that the statutory remedy is adequate and exclusive. C.R.C.P. 81 provides that the Rules of Civil Procedure do not apply where there is a special statutory proceeding which sets forth remedies. Denver v. Athmar Park Bldg. Co., 151 Colo. 424, 378 P.2d 638 (1963); Simmons v. Board of County...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Broadnax
...or in conflict therewith)." State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Cabs, Inc., 751 P.2d 61, 65 (Colo.1988) (citing Brown v. Hansen, 177 Colo. 39, 493 P.2d 1086 (1972); City of Westminster v. District Court, 167 Colo. 263, 447 P.2d 537 (1968); Wright v. Tinsley, 148 Colo. 258, 365 P.2d 691 (1961)......
-
Lloyd A. Fry Roofing Co. v. State Dept. of Health Air Pollution Variance Bd.
...C.R.C.P. 65(d) and section 25--7--102, C.R.S.1973, is resolved in favor of the statutory section. C.R.C.P. 81(a); Brown v. Hansen, 177 Colo. 39, 493 P.2d 1086 (1972); City of Westminster v. District Court, 167 Colo. 263, 447 P.2d 537 (1968). In view of the stated public policy of the Act an......
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Cabs, Inc., 86SA124
...proceeding which sets forth remedies (and the rules of civil procedure are inconsistent or in conflict therewith). Brown v. Hansen, 177 Colo. 39, 493 P.2d 1086 (1972); City of Westminster v. District Court, 167 Colo. 236, 447 P.2d 537 (1968); Wright v. Tinsley, 148 Colo. 258, 365 P.2d 691 (......
- People v. Moore, s. 82SA561
-
Appealing Driver License Revocations and Suspensions
...466, at 471, 366 P.2d 563 (1961). 11. See Fry Roofing Co. v. State Department of Health,___Colo.___, 553 P.2d 800 (1976); Brown v. Hansen, 177 Colo. 39, 493 P.2d 1086 (1972); Colorado River Water Conservation District v. Rocky Mountain Power, 174 Colo. 309, 486 P.2d 438 (1971); Hithe v. Nel......