Crawford v. Board of County Com'rs of Johnson County, 62556
| Citation | 776 P.2d 832,13 Kan.App.2d 592 |
| Decision Date | 14 July 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 62556,62556 |
| Parties | Griffin CRAWFORD and Vivian Crawford, Appellees/Cross-Appellants, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF JOHNSON COUNTY, Kansas, and William E. O'Brien as Treasurer of Johnson County, Kansas, Appellants/Cross-Appellees. |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
Where improvements to property are not included in a tax assessment, those improvements have "escaped taxation" under K.S.A. 79-417 only when the property owner is aware of his or her favored status and remains silent. Following In re Order of Board of Tax Appeals, 236 Kan. 406, 411, 691 P.2d 394 (1984).
Philip S. Harness, County Counselor, and Donald D. Jarrett, Chief Counsel, for appellants/cross-appellees.
Park McGee, Overland Park, for appellees/cross-appellants.
Before BRISCOE, P.J., and ELLIOTT and GERNON, JJ.
The Johnson County Board of County Commissioners (Board) appeals a summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs, holding the Board could not, under K.S.A. 79-417, collect additional property taxes from plaintiffs. The Crawfords cross-appealed from the denial of their request for attorney fees.
We affirm.
Plaintiffs' land was originally improved with the addition of a single building and was assessed as improved land. Subsequently, plaintiffs erected a second building on the property and the appraiser apparently did not assess any tax for one of the buildings. That building was not taxed for the years 1973 through 1977.
The county discovered its mistake and sent plaintiffs an amended tax statement. Plaintiffs' initial lawsuit seeking to enjoin the Board from levying and collecting the additional tax was dismissed for lack of prosecution in 1986. Plaintiffs filed the present case in June 1987, again seeking to enjoin the Board from collecting the additional tax.
In granting plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, the trial court ruled the county's failure to include the value of one of the buildings in the appraisal resulted from clerical error and did not constitute an escape from taxation.
The Board first argues the case is time barred by K.S.A. 60-511(5), the catchall five-year period of limitations. This injunction suit was brought pursuant to article 9 of chapter 60, which contains no specific time limitation. Accordingly, article 5 of chapter 60 does control this case.
But the Board's position overlooks K.S.A. 79-1804, which provides that a lien for unpaid taxes attaches to the property on November 1 of the year in which the tax is levied. The lien continues until the taxes are paid. K.S.A. 79-1804 clearly gives the county an adverse interest in the property until the taxes are paid.
K.S.A. 60-507 provides a 15-year statute of limitations for the determination of any adverse claim to real property. The trial court did not err in ruling plaintiffs' suit was not time barred.
The Board also argues the trial court erred when it ruled the property had not "escaped" taxation under K.S.A. 79-417. That statute provides that when any land, for any reason, escapes taxation, the county shall have the power to recapture the escaped tax. Specifically, K.S.A. 79-417 provides:
"The county clerk in all cases where any lands or improvements located within the county which for any reason have not been assessed for taxation or have escaped taxation for any former year or years when the same were liable for taxation, shall place the same upon the assessment and tax rolls, shall cause the same to be valued by the county appraiser, and shall charge against such lands or improvements taxes equal to and in accordance with the tax levies that would have been charged against such lands or improvements had they properly been listed and assessed at the time they should have been assessed under the provisions of the general laws governing the assessment and taxation of land."
At first blush, the statute seems to focus on the land/improvements. And the Board simply argues that plaintiffs' property "escaped" taxation and thus the taxes should be subject to recapture. But the Supreme Court has placed the focus of K.S.A. 79-417 not on the property, but rather on the taxpayer.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Butler v. HCA Health Svcs. of Kansas, Inc.
...on his cross-appeal and, therefore, the cross-appeal will be considered to have been abandoned. See Crawford v. Board of Johnson County Comm'rs, 13 Kan. App.2d 592, 594, 776 P.2d 832 (1989). New Trial/Recall of Butler's primary issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in denying her......
-
Russell v. Farmers Ins. Co., Inc., 96,416.
...to consider this procedural question because it has not been squarely presented for our review. See Crawford v. Board of Johnson County Comm'rs, 13 Kan.App.2d 592, 594, 776 P.2d 832 (1989) (a passing reference does not raise an issue on Russell also contends that Farmers was not prejudiced ......
-
In re United Ag Services, Inc., 95,947.
...Kan. 555, 757 P.2d 314 (1988); In re Order of Board of Tax Appeals, 236 Kan. 406, 691 P.2d 394 (1984); Crawford v. Board of Johnson County Comm'rs, 13 Kan. App.2d 592, 776 P.2d 832 (1989). Suffice it to say that these cases focus on the phrase "omitted from the tax rolls" in construing and ......
-
Beltz v. Dings
...court. Where a cross-appellant fails to brief an issue, that issue is deemed waived or abandoned. Crawford v. Board of Johnson County Comm'rs, 13 Kan. App.2d 592, 594, 776 P.2d 832 (1989). ...