Chapman v. Ada County

• Decision Date: 16 January 1930
• Docket Number: 5458
• Parties: LORA G. CHAPMAN, Executrix of the Estate of NELSON CARLTON CHAPMAN, Respondent, v. ADA COUNTY and JOHN JACKSON, Judge and Ex-Officio Clerk of the Probate Court of said Ada County, Appellants
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

284 P. 259

48 Idaho 632

LORA G. CHAPMAN, Executrix of the Estate of NELSON CARLTON CHAPMAN, Respondent, v. ADA COUNTY and JOHN JACKSON, Judge and Ex-Officio Clerk of the Probate Court of said Ada County, Appellants

No. 5458

Supreme Court of Idaho

January 16, 1930

TAXATION-FEES OF PROBATE COURT.

1. A fee must bear some relation to the value of the services rendered.

2. C S., sec. 3705, as amended by Laws 1925, chap. 16, and further amended by Laws 1927, chap. 91, setting forth schedule of probate court fees and fixing minimum fee for probating an estate at $5, and providing for graduated fee scale for estates, value of which exceed $5,000, thereby making money value of estate sole criterion in fixing fee, held to impose "tax" in the guise of fee.

3. Tax imposed by C. S., sec. 3705, as amended by Laws 1925, chap 16, and further amended by Laws 1927, chap. 91, setting forth a schedule of probate court fees, fixing minimum fee for probating estate at $5, and providing for graduated fee scale for estates value of which exceed $5,000, held not an "inheritance tax."

4. C S., sec. 3705, as amended by Laws 1925, chap. 16, and further amended by Laws 1927, chap. 91, providing for minimum fee for probating an estate, fixing it at $5, and providing for graduated fee scale for estates, value of which exceed $5,000, thereby making money value of estate sole criterion in fixing fee without regard to work performed, held to impose property tax and unconstitutional as violating Const art. 7, sec. 5, requiring that all taxes shall be uniform upon same class of subjects.

5. It was within power of legislature to require the payment of a reasonable fee based upon and commensurate with services to be rendered for probate of all estates.

6. Fee of twenty cents a folio for copies of all papers and proceedings in probate court, as authorized by C. S., sec. 3705, as amended by Laws 1925, chap. 16, held unaffected by amendment in Laws 1927, chap. 91, providing fees based on value of estate should cover cost of copies of papers and proceedings, which amendment was unconstitutional as violating Const., art. 7, sec. 5, requiring that all taxes be uniform on same class of subjects.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, for Ada County. Hon. Dana E. Brinck, Judge.

Action to recover a fee collected under a void statute. Judgment for plaintiff. Affirmed.

Judgment affirmed. Costs awarded to respondent.

Carl A. Burke, for Appellants.

Fee, such as involved in the present case, cannot properly be considered a tax. (1 Cooley on Taxation, 4th ed., pp. 61, 66; Pacific Livestock Co. v. Cochran, 73 Ore. 417, 144 P. 668; State ex rel. Bell v. Frazier, 36 Ore. 178, 59 P. 5; Northern Counties Investment Trust v. Sears, 30 Ore. 388, 41 P. 931, 35 L. R. A. 188; Beebe v. Wells, 37 Kan. 472, 15 P. 565; In re Kessler, 26 Idaho 764, 774, Ann. Cas. 1917A, 228, 146 P. 113, L. R. A. 1915D, 322.)

Even though sec. 3705, as amended, may be considered as a measure for raising revenue, yet the fees provided are not taxes within the meaning of Const., secs. 5 and 6, art. 7. (In re Kessler, supra; State v. Nelson, 36 Idaho 713, 718, 213 P. 358; Hartman v. Meier, 39 Idaho 261, 227 P. 25.)

Dean Driscoll, for Respondent.

The statute violates the constitutional provisions cited. ( Berryman v. Bowers, 31 Ariz. 56, 250 P. 361, and cases cited; Malin v. Lamoure County, 27 N.D. 140, Ann. Cas. 1916C, 207, 145 N.W. 582, 50 L. R. A., N. S., 997, and note; Fatjo v. Pfister, 117 Cal. 83, 48 P. 1012.)

W. D. Gillis, Attorney General, and Alfred C. Cordon, Assistant Attorney General, Amici Curiae, cite no authorities.

GIVENS, C. J. Budge, T. Bailey Lee and Varian, JJ., concur.

OPINION

GIVENS, C. J.

This action was brought to recover the sum of $ 50, which plaintiff as executrix was required to pay as a fee for probating an estate in the probate court of Ada county.

C. S., sec. 3705, as amended by chap. 16, Laws of 1925, p. 25, as further amended by chap. 91, Laws of 1927, p. 117, sets forth a schedule of probate court fees. The minimum fee for probating an estate is $ 5. For estates the value of which exceeds $ 5,000 a graduated fee scale is provided. Plaintiff concedes liability for the minimum fee but resists the imposition of all in excess of that, and demands its return, on the ground that C. S., sec. 3705, as amended, by authority of which the fees were exacted, is unconstitutional and void.

The first question to be determined is whether the statute authorizes a fee or imposes a tax. A fee must bear some relation to the value of the services rendered. While it is conceivable that the services required for the probate of some large estates would be trifling, it may be conceded, as asserted by appellants, that as a rule the additional work made necessary by the probate of large estates would warrant larger fees than the probate of small estates. But these increased fees must be related in some way that is apparent to the additional services required. The statute in question makes their sole criterion the money value of the estate which in many cases would authorize a fee entirely out of proportion to the value of the services rendered. The authorities which have had this precise question under consideration in connection with similar statutes conclude that such statutes impose a tax in the guise of a fee. ( Malin v. Lamoure County, 27 N.D. 140, Ann. Cas. 1916C, 207, 145 N.W. 582, 50 L. R. A., N. S., 997, and note; State v. Case, 39 Wash. 177, 109 Am. St. 874, 81 P. 554, 1 L. R. A., N. S., 152.)

The second question to be determined is whether the legislature infringed upon any constitutional provision in imposing this tax. Section 5 of art. 7 alone need be considered. This provision requires that "all taxes shall be uniform upon the same class of subjects within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax and shall be levied and collected under general laws which shall prescribe such regulations as shall secure a just valuation for taxation of all property, real and personal. . . . "

It is not contended, nor could it be successfully, that this is an inheritance tax. (Malin v. Lamoure County supra; Fatjo v. Pfister, 117 Cal. 83, 48 P. 1012.) Nor do we understand that it is any other kind of a privilege tax, and hence the analogy of the automobile license taxes, urged by appellants, fails. It is not a tax imposed under the police power for...