Citizens' Committee for Fair Property Taxation v. Warner

• Decision Date: 18 February 1953
• Docket Number: No. 17004,17004
• Citation: 254 P.2d 1005,127 Colo. 121
• Parties: CITIZENS' COMMITTEE FOR FAIR PROPERTY TAXATION et al. v. WARNER et al.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

Page 1005

254 P.2d 1005

127 Colo. 121

CITIZENS' COMMITTEE FOR FAIR PROPERTY TAXATION et al. v. WARNER et al.

No. 17004.

Supreme Court of Colorado.

Feb. 18, 1953.

John A. McCarthy, Jack Jenkins and William L. Lloyd, Pueblo, for complainants.

L. E. Langdon, Pueblo, for respondents officers of Pueblo County.

Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., H. Lawrence Hinkley, Deputy Atty. Gen., Frank A Wachob, Asst. Atty. Gen., and C. M. Soller, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondents Colorado Tax Commission et al.

CLARK, Justice.

This is an original proceeding in the nature of prohibition, in which a rule to show cause was duly issued. No hearing having been had before any trial court, the issues before us are confined to those matters presented by the pleadings of the respective parties, including the documents thereto attached as parts thereof. The subject involved is the validity of the 1952 tax assessment in and for the County of Pueblo.

In the opening paragraph of the 'Statement of the Case and Brief in Support of Complaint' is what we take to be, from a study of the complaint, a general, over-all statement of complainants' position and basis of attack in language as follows:

'Complainants deny the validity of the 1952 reappraisal of Pueblo County property allegedly performed by the County Assessor as ordered by the Colorado Tax Commission, on the grounds that said reappraisal was illegal, unconstitutional, and void; that the Respondents failed to provide to complainants their statutory rights to notice and opportunity for hearing, that said reappraisal in its present stage is inequitable and confiscatory, that complainants will suffer irreparable damage if said reappraisal is not set aside, that said reappraisal has never been completed, that the constitutional requirement of uniformity of taxation has not been complied with, and that complainants will be deprived of their property without due process of law unless the relief prayed for herein is granted. * * *' (For reasons which hereinafter will more fully appear, we have supplied emphasis to the term 'reappraisal' which appears five times in the quoted portion of counsel's statement.)

Reference to the complaint supplies details of the matters generally contained in the foregoing statement, among which are:

A. Violation of statutes concerning notice and fixing time: (1) That the county assessor failed to give proper legal notice of the date upon which he would hear objections to the assessment roll. (2) That the county clerk failed to give proper notice of the date of meeting of the county Board of Equalization.

B. It is alleged that on July 1, 1952, the reappraisal of property in Pueblo county had not been, is not yet, and probably for another year, will not be completed. Because the reappraisal was incomplete on July 1, 1952, it is asserted that no assessment roll had been completed and none such was or is yet in existence, thus making it impossible: (1) For the assessor to hear objections thereto as provided by chapter 142, section 114, '35 C.S.A., resulting in his failure to do so, and likewise in, (2) his inability to submit to the County Board of Equalization a complete assessment of all property in the county by the date or its first meeting as required by section 133, chapter 142, '35 C.S.A.; (3) that, because of not having before it a completed assessment roll, the meetings of the County Board of Equalization were illegal and invalid up to the time and date when, by statute, said meetings should have been concluded.

C. Notwithstanding that on September 13, 1952, the assessor mailed to the Colorado Tax Commission an abstract of a completed assessment of all property subject to taxation in Pueblo county, it is alleged that subsequent actions of the Colorado Tax Commission and of the State Board of Equalization with respect thereto are illeged and void, (1) Because not within the time prescribed by law; and, (2) the assessment was invalid because the reappraisal was, and yet is, incomplete.

D. That, because of all of the foregoing matters, complainants allege they have been deprived of their rights to object, appeal, and otherwise oppose the assessments of their property; that such have been arbitrarily levied, and that same are discriminatory and excessive, particularly with respect to residential properties, which come under the classification of 'Real Estate Improvements;' this being the type of property in which complainants are interested.

Complainants further plead that, unless granted the relief prayed by them by this court, they 'will suffer irreparable damage and injury' in real and substantial portions; also asserting that they were prevented from pursuing the usual administrative procedures concerning the presentation of objections to their tax assessments by reason of the failure of respondents to complete the reappraisal and extend the tax rolls based thereon, thus forcing complainants to resort to this original proceeding.

I.

While from the complaint itself it appears clear that complainants' various contentions, in their entirety, are predicated upon the failure of the authorities to complete the tax reappraisal program in Pueblo county in time for the 1952 assessment, this position is emphasized and definitely made manifest by argument contained in both the opening and reply briefs filed on their behalf.

The 'reappraisal' referred to is that 'of the assessed valuation of the taxable property subject to the ad valorem tax' under the supervision of the Colorado Tax Commission, begun in the forepart of 1949, practically state-wide in extent, with approval of the legislature. Chapter 111, S.L.1947 and chapter 95, S.L.1949. No limitation of time within which the reappraisal should be completed was imposed. It has been completed in many counties of Colorado but not in all. The County of Pueblo is one of those in which, it is admitted, the reappraisal is incomplete. No statute of Colorado requires the completion of the reappraisal prior to assessment of property for ad valorem taxes for 1952. Quite the contrary, the statute does require that 'All taxable property shall be listed and valued each year, and shall be assessed at its full cash value; land to be listed and valued separate and apart from the personal property and improvements thereon.' Section 2, chapter 142, '35 C.S.A.

While the property owner is required, under section 48 of chapter 142, as amended by section 2, chapter 252, S.L. '51, page 713, to furnish to the assessor his statement under oath 'setting forth specifically all the real and personal property owned by such person' on March 1st of each year, and, by section 50 of chapter 142, as amended by section 5, chapter 158, S.L. '43, page 492, to set forth therein a description of his real estate 'sufficient to identify the same,' the duty of determining the final estimate of value of such property for the purpose of taxation devolves upon the assessors. Fairlamb v. Bowle, 101 Colo. 135, 137, 138, 71 P.2d 417.

It not only is the duty of the assessor to see to it that all property within his county is returned for tax assessment, and to finally fix the valuation upon each item for that purpose, but he further is obligated to undertake, so far as within his power and judgment, to see to it that taxes shall be uniformly assessed within his county.

'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;' Section 3, Article X, Colorado Constitution.

Early judicial attention was given to defining this section of the Constitution in various matters before this court, in none of which, however, was it more clearly stated than in Ames, County Assessor v. People ex rel., 26 Colo. 83, 107, 56 P. 656, 664, wherein it is said:

'The uniformity and equality enjoined by the constitution require only that the same means and methods be applied impartially to all the constituents of each class, so that it operates equally and uniformly upon all persons and corporations in similar circumstances.'

Nor is the assessor a free agent in the performance of the exacting official duties imposed upon him by law, but he is under the supervision of the Colorado Tax Commission, the express province of which is to see to it that the assessment of all property throughout the state 'be made relatively just and uniform and at its true and full cash value'; and 'to require all county assessors, * * * under penalty of forfeiture and removal from office * * *, to assess all property of every kind or character at its actual and full cash value.' Section 157, chapter 142, '35 C.S.A.; People ex rel. v. Pitcher, 61 Colo. 149, 156 P. 812.

When it came time for respondent Warner, as county assessor of Pueblo county, to make up his tax roll for the year 1952 in his county, the revised valuations under the reappraisal program throughout the state were going into effect and operation. His work of reappraisal was not fully completed, although it would appear that it was sufficiently far advanced that trends of changes from former standards were proportionately discernible where reappraisal had not actually been made. His affidavit (Respondents' Exhibit 1) appears before us, wherein he avers that on July 3, 1952, he caused notice to be published that he would, commencing on July 7, 1952, sit at his office 'for the purpose of hearing any and all objections to the assessment roll for the year 1952', and that at all times mentioned in said notice he had before him the assessment roll of the property subject to assessment and taxation within the county of Pueblo; 'That the valuations on said assessment roll were determined as follows, to wit:

'(a) On personal property, the actual valuation was placed thereon by appraisal as of...