City of Ozark v. Trawick
Decision Date | 21 August 1992 |
Citation | 604 So.2d 360 |
Parties | CITY OF OZARK v. Johnny TRAWICK, et al. 1910692. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Joseph W. Adams, Ozark, and John G. Harrell and G. Edward Cassady III of Bradley, Arant, Rose & White, Birmingham, for appellant.
Samuel A. Cherry of Cherry, Givens, Tarver, Peters, Lockett & Diaz, P.C., Dothan, for appellees.
This is a tax case, where it is undisputed that the legal authority to collect the tax had expired and that the taxpayers are entitled to a refund of the amounts they paid. The amount of the refund is not at issue. What is at issue is the trial court's award of prejudgment interest and its award of attorney fees.
The facts are as follows:
On October 12, 1954, the City of Ozark ("the City") held a special election to authorize a special ad valorem tax to provide funds to build a new high school in the City. The tax was approved for the period beginning October 1, 1955, and ending September 30, 1985. By mistake, the City continued to collect the taxes for two more years, through September 30, 1987. 1
Johnny Trawick, individually, and as representative of the class ("the Class") composed of all persons who had owned land situated within the City during the period October 1, 1985, through September 30, 1987, and who had paid taxes as assessed for that period after the authorized 30-year period had expired, and who desired a refund of the taxes paid during that two-year period, sued the City for a refund and sought prejudgment interest on those amounts and reasonable attorney fees. The City counterclaimed, seeking to have any taxpayer's refund offset by the amount of ad valorem taxes the taxpayer had failed to pay. The trial court entered a judgment for the Class, which reads in part as follows:
The City appeals from the trial court's award of prejudgment interest on the refund and from the "lump sum" award of attorney fees in the amount of 1/3 of the total refund ordered. We affirm in part and reverse in part and remand.
The law is well settled, and the parties agree, that absent express statutory authorization, no prejudgment interest can be awarded on refunds of municipal taxes. See Glass v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America, 246 Ala. 579, 22 So.2d 13 (1945).
The City argues that there is no statutory authority for awarding prejudgment interest on refunds of illegally collected ad valorem taxes such as in this case, because neither of the applicable statutory provisions, Ala.Code 1975, § 40-10-164, or Ala.Code 1975 § 11-51-72, permits the imposition of prejudgment interest. It further argues that Ala.Code 1975, § 40-3-25 ( ) is not applicable in this case because that section governs property valuation and assessment (classification for valuation purposes) and deals with procedures for appealing the property valuations, which is not at issue in this case; and because, the City says, § 40-3-25 does not deal with refunds of ad valorem taxes erroneously paid or collected, such as in this case. According to the City, prejudgment interest is not available on refunds where the basis of the refund is the incorrect levy of a tax, as in this case, as compared to a claim for refund based on an allegedly incorrect assessment of property where the levy is correct.
The Class argues that § 40-3-25 is the applicable statutory authority for the imposition of prejudgment interest. According to the Class, the fact that § 40-3-25 was written in the context of overassessments does not preclude its application to all ad valorem taxes erroneously paid--that is, that § 40-3-25
Section 40-3-25 deals specifically with the process of valuing property and assessing the taxes thereon and with the procedure for appealing "from the rulings of the board of equalization fixing value of property":
(Emphasis added.) Section 40-3-25 is part of (§§ 40-3-1 through 40-3-26), which sets forth, among other things, the method of creating a board of equalization, the qualifications for membership on that board, the method of selecting members, the terms of office, the method of filing vacancies, compensation, the duties of the board and its members, the method of reviewing assessments, the procedure for hearing objections to valuations, and the procedure for appealing. Where assessment and valuation of property are not at issue, § 40-3-25 does not apply. In this case, the valuation of property is not at issue. Therefore, § 40-3-25 is not applicable.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Oklahoma Tax Com'n v. Ricks
...administrator); Greenough, supra note 9, 105 U.S. at 527, 26 L.Ed. at 1157 (administration of a public trust).14 City of Ozark v. Trawick, 604 So.2d 360, 364 (Ala.1992).15 Raleigh-Durham Airport Auth. v. Howard, 88 N.C.App. 207, 363 S.E.2d 184, 187 (1987).16 Flynn v. Kucharski, 16 Ill.App.3......
-
Campbell v. General Motors Corp.
...on behalf of his client created a fund to which others may also have a claim" is entitled to payment from that fund. City of Ozark v. Trawick, 604 So.2d 360, 364 (Ala.1992). Payment is typically calculated based on a flat percentage of the fund itself. See Camden I, 946 F.2d at 774. The doc......
-
James v. Alabama Coalition For Equity, Inc.
...compensate an attorney whose services on behalf of his client created a fund to which others may also have a claim." City of Ozark v. Trawick, 604 So.2d 360, 364 (Ala.1992). The trial court awarded these parties fees only pursuant to § 1988. Harper and ADAP do not challenge the amount of fe......
-
Romar Development Co., Inc. v. Gulf View Management Corp.
...in the creation of a common fund from which the attorney may be paid. Hart v. Jackson, 607 So.2d 161 (Ala.1992); City of Ozark v. Trawick, 604 So.2d 360 (Ala.1992); Mitchell v. Huntsville Hosp., 598 So.2d 1358 (Ala.1992); Blankenship v. City of Hoover, 590 So.2d 245 (Ala.1991). This is not ......