Chavez v. Canyon Cnty.
| Decision Date | 06 January 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 38378.,38378. |
| Citation | 271 P.3d 695,152 Idaho 297 |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
| Parties | Ismael CHAVEZ and Delores Mercado, Petitioners–Appellants–Cross Respondents, v. CANYON COUNTY, STATE of Idaho, through ITS DULY ELECTED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS and the Canyon County Treasurer, and ex-officio tax collector, Defendant–Respondent–Cross Appellants. |
Ismael Chavez, Caldwell, pro se appellant argued.
Bryan F. Taylor, Canyon County Prosecuting Attorney, Caldwell, for respondent. Carlton R. Ericson argued.
This case concerns Appellants Ismael Chavez and Delores Mercado (collectively Chavez) and their appeal of the district court's granting of their petition for judicial review, claiming that the original complaint should not have been converted into a petition for judicial review. Chavez also appeals the district court's finding that the motion for contempt for Canyon County's untimely compliance with a district court order was moot. Canyon County cross-appeals the district court's decision that the flat fee included on the County's notice of pending issue of tax deed was in violation of I.C. § 63–1005(4)(d) requiring an itemized statement.
In resolving the appeal, we address issues concerning the conversion of Chavez's declaratory action into a petition for judicial review, the statutory requirements for a notice of pending issue of tax deeds, the discretion of the district court to impose sanctions for contempt, and attorney fees for pro se litigants.
On December 4, 2009, Chavez filed a class action complaint seeking a declaratory judgment and damages. Chavez alleged Canyon County (County) had violated a requirement in Idaho Code section 63–1005(4)(d) for an itemized statement of all costs and fees in its notice prior to an issuance of treasurer's tax deeds on two parcels of land they owned. In its Notice of Pending Issue of Tax Deed (Notice) for two parcels owned jointly by Chavez and Mercado, Canyon County had charged a $500.00 flat fee for administration costs. Chavez responded pursuant to I.C. § 63–1006(2) by serving the County with an Answer and Objection to the Notices on October 8, 2009. The County's attorney then sent Chavez a letter detailing the adoption of County Resolution No. 09–169, which was claimed to allow the County to assess a flat fee for the issuance of notices for delinquent tax accounts. After Chavez attended a hearing on November 20, 2009, he received notice that tax deeds were issued on the two properties owned by Chavez.
Upon a motion for summary judgment, the district court filed an order on April 9, 2010, denying the motion and finding that Chavez had failed to follow the proper procedures as set forth in I.C. § 63–1006(4) and allowing Chavez fourteen days to file the required Petition for Judicial Review. Ten days later, the petition was filed. On June 3, 2010, Chavez filed a Motion to Augment the Record, which was granted on June 17, 2010, at an uncontested hearing that required the County to file the Affidavits of Compliance with the district court by June 29, 2010. After Chavez filed a Motion for Contempt on July 8, 2010, the County complied with the Order on July 13, 2010. On October 25, 2010, the district court filed its Order on Petition for Judicial Review. The district court ruled that the County's flat fee, authorized by a County resolution,1 did not list the incurred charges as required by I.C. § 63–1005(4)(d), stating that "[b]y its fundamental meaning, ‘itemized’ does not allow a summary flat fee." To reach its conclusion, the district court considered the plain meaning of the words used in the statute, finding that a flat fee could not detail multiple costs and fees and that the plural words used in the statute, costs or fees, could not allow the use of a single flat fee. The district court also found persuasive a similar case from Montana that declared a tax deed notice null and void for failure to include a listing of costs.2
In addition to declaring the Notices null and void, the district court denied Chavez's request for costs under I.C. § 63–1006(5), and found moot the motion for contempt since the County had complied with the court's order.
A final judgment was filed on November 10, 2010, Chavez timely filed a notice of appeal on December 17, 2010, and Canyon County timely filed a notice of cross-appeal on January 7, 2011.
Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 84 governs judicial review of administrative and local governing bodies, but limits the scope of review for a petition for judicial review to that which is provided by statute. Roberts v. Bd. of Trustees, Pocatello, Sch. Dist. No. 25, 134 Idaho 890, 892–93, 11 P.3d 1108, 1110–11 (2000) ; I.R.C.P. 84(e)(2). Pursuant to Idaho Code section 63–1006(4) any person aggrieved by a county commissioners' decision to issue a tax deed can have the decision reviewed by the district court. I.C. § 63–1006(4). The district court confines its review to the record from the county and can only reverse or modify the commissioners' decision if substantial rights have been prejudiced. Id. Prejudice is found if the commissioners' findings, conclusions of law, or decisions are:
Id. Upon appeal, the decision reached by the district court in its appellate capacity for such a review is examined by this Court to consider whether the district court correctly decided the issues presented to it on appeal. Lake CDA Inv., LLC v. Idaho Dept. of Lands, 149 Idaho 274, 278, 233 P.3d 721, 725 (2010).
Chavez argues that when the district court converted his complaint into a petition for judicial review, it failed to address his allegation that the County had acted in ultra vires and should pay damages or other declaratory relief for its unauthorized actions. We deal first with the issue of whether the district court had the authority to convert the declaratory action into a petition for judicial review and whether it had jurisdiction in the petition for judicial review. This Court finds that it had neither.
Title 63, Chapter 10, of the Idaho Code states the provisions for the collection of delinquencies for county property taxes. Section 63–1005 entitles a county to a tax deed when the delinquency has not been redeemed within three years. I.C. § 63–1005(1). The entitlement to a tax deed is conditioned on two requirements being met by the county:
I.C. § 63–1005(1)(a)–(b). The purpose of the statutory requirements is that a record is made to prove the county has given notice to the property owner. See Kivett v. Owyhee Cnty., 58 Idaho 372, 377, 74 P.2d 87, 88 (1937) (). The required notice must contain "[a]n itemized statement detailing the delinquency and all costs and fees incident to the delinquency and notice up to and including the date of the making of such notice." I.C. § 63–1005(4)(d).3 Before the tax deed may be recorded, a county must comply with these applicable statutes. See Cluff v. Bonner Cnty., 126 Idaho 950, 953, 895 P.2d 551, 554 (1995). Finally, Idaho Code section 63–1006(4) provides for review by the district court for any person "aggrieved by a final decision of the county commissioners concerning the issuance of a tax deed."
In the present case, Chavez filed a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment and asserting that the County was acting ultra vires for failure to provide an itemized statement of all costs and fees in the notice of pending issue tax deed. Upon Chavez's motion for summary judgment, the district court issued an order recognizing that Chavez was alleging grievances related to the County's decision to issue a tax deed and denied the summary judgment. The district court also ordered that Chavez must follow the procedures listed in I.C. § 63–1006(4) and I.R.C.P. 84, and file a petition for judicial review if he wished to pursue the action further. Chavez complied with this Order and filed a petition for judicial review ten days later. Chavez now argues that the district court erred by forcing Chavez to convert the complaint to a petition for judicial review.
Pursuant to I.C. § 10–1202, a person may obtain a declaration of rights if the person's "rights, status or other legal relations are affected by a statute, municipal ordinance, contract or franchise." Rule 57 of the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure states in part that the "existence of another adequate remedy does not preclude a judgment for declaratory relief where it is appropriate." I.R.C.P. 57(a). In Winther v. Village of Weippe, we held that "although the allegations of the pleadings may indicate that an alternative statutory or common law action may lie, the trial court should not dismiss a declaratory judgment action on that ground alone." 91 Idaho 798, 801, 430 P.2d 689, 692 (1967).
In Winther, the appellant argued that the respondent could not proceed by way of a declaratory judgment action. Id. at 800, 430 P.2d at 691. Instead, it was argued that respondent was required to pursue an action under the procedural provisions in Title 23, Chapter 10 of the Idaho Code to contest the municipal's denial of respondents' beer license application. Id. at 800–01, 430 P.2d at 691–92. We found that although the statutory provisions for review by the district court were later, more specific legislation, they did not expressly or impliedly abrogate the general remedy provided for in the older Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act. Id. at 801, 430 P.2d at 692. Therefore, we held...
To continue reading
Request your trial