Dore v. Kinnear
| Decision Date | 14 October 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 41783,41783 |
| Citation | 79 Wn.2d 755,489 P.2d 898 |
| Parties | Fred H. DORE et al., Appellants, v. George KINNEAR, State of Washington Director of Revenue, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Dore & Dubuar, Fred H. Dore, Seattle, for appellants.
Christopher T. Bayley, Pros. Atty., William R. Creech, Deputy Pros. Atty., Seattle, Slade Gorton, Atty. Gen., Timothy Malone, Asst. Atty. Gen., Olympia, for respondents.
This is an action by the plaintiffs (appellants), as residents and taxpayers in King County on behalf of themselves and other taxpayers similarly situated, seeking a permanent injunction restraining the defendants (respondents), the Washington State Director of Revenue, the King County Assessor, the King County Executive and the King County Board of Equalization, from placing the assessed values obtained by a revaluation of the plaintiffs' property on the King County assessment rolls for the payment of real property taxes for the year 1971.
On September 2, 1969, the director of the Department of Revenue entered into a contract with John Spellman, King County Executive, for appraisal funds appropriated by the state, Laws of 1969, Ex.Ses., ch. 282, § 4, p. 2745; Laws of 1970, Ex.Ses., ch. 95, § 1, p. 736, for the purpose of undertaking a comprehensive revaluation of real property in King County over a 4-year period.
The program provided that for each of the 4 years, approximately 25 per cent of the 450,000 parcels of real property located in King County would be revalued and placed upon the assessment rolls. The detailed plan provided that approximately 90,000 parcels in King County in the area bounded by the Snohomish-King County line on the north, Lake Washington Ship Canal on the south, Lake Washington on the east and Puget Sound on the west, would be revalued and placed upon the assessment rolls for the first year of the 4-year cycle.
A contract for appraisals was entered into with the Jacobs Company, Inc., an Illinois corporation, to appraise approximately 70,000 parcels of property during the first year, and the remaining 20,000 parcels located in the Shoreline school district were to be appraised by the King County assessor's staff.
By May 31, 1970, the Jacobs Company, Inc. had completed appraisals on 27,000 parcels out of its total of 70,000. The King County assessor's office placed these new values on the assessment rolls for the purpose of taxes payable in 1971. As of the same date appraisers on the King County assessor's staff had completed appraisals of the buildings and improvements on 7,000 parcels located in the Shoreline school district, but had not appraised the land. The new values for these buildings and improvements were not placed on the assessment rolls for taxes payable in 1971.
The contentions of the plaintiffs, which we deem critical to the disposition of the case, are that the revaluation of only 27,000 parcels and placing them on the 1971 assessment rolls, was a failure of compliance with the 4-year cyclical revaluation program as directed by the legislature in RCW 84.41.030; that the actions of the King County assessor were arbitrary and capricious and grossly discriminatory, and were therefore in contravention of the equal protection clauses of the federal and state constitutions (U.S.Const. amend. 14; Const. art. 1, § 12), as well as the uniformity provisions of the fourteenth amendment to the state constitution, and that this increased tax on their property, resulting from the revaluation, was void. They therefore brought this action to restrain the county from its collection. The trial court ruled in favor of the defendants thus denying the plaintiffs the relief they sought. This appeal followed.
On March 3, 1971, the plaintiffs filed a motion in this court for a temporary injunction, pending the resolution of this appeal, to restrain the defendants from collecting the increased tax for the year of 1971, by reason of the revaluation of the 27,000 parcels owned by these plaintiffs. This relief was granted by this court in its order dated March 29, 1971.
In this appeal now before us on the merits, it is the defendants' position that the conduct of the county assessor was not intentionally discriminatory, and that a revision of the appraisal program will be made to include all the property in King County in the remaining 3 years of the cyclical period; that this, in effect, would cure any deviation that has taken place during the first year of the cycle. We disagree with this rationale.
The legislature has vested in county authorities the power and duty to list, appraise, and assess all taxable property within the county, and to levy and collect all such property taxes. These responsibilities are not vested in the county authorities without conditions and limitations which they are compelled to follow. We have repeatedly held that county authorities are totally dependent upon the legislature for any power which they may exercise in the assessing and levying of taxes. State ex rel. School Dist. No. 37 v. Clark County, 177 Wash. 314, 31 P.2d 897 (1934); Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Stevens County, 108 Wash. 238, 183 P. 65 (1919).
In the instant case, the county assessors are directed to maintain a systematic and continuous 4-year cyclical revaluation program as prescribed by the legislature in RCW 84.41.030. This statute provides as follows:
Each county assessor shall commence, immediately if possible, but no later than January 1, 1956, a comprehensive program of revaluation of all taxable property within his respective county. Such program shall progress at a rate which will result in the revaluation of all taxable property within the county before June 1, 1958.
Each assessor shall thereafter maintain an active And systematic program of revaluation on a continuous basis, and shall establish a revaluation schedule which will result in revaluation of all taxable property within the county at least once each four years. A copy of such schedule shall be filed by each assessor with the tax commission before October 15, 1956.
(Italics ours)
In 1969 the legislature, recognizing the inequalities in the revaluation programs, passed a general appropriation act making funds available to the county assessors. Pursuant to the requirements of Laws of 1969, Ex.Ses., ch. 282, § 4, p. 2745, the King County assessor submitted a comprehensive revaluation plan to the Department of Revenue in order that King County may qualify for funding of the revaluation program. The purpose of the funds was to assist the assessor in maintaining a systematic revaluation program as required by RCW 84.41.030, Supra. The Memorandum of Agreement entered into between the Washington State Department of Revenue and King County on September 2, 1969, sets forth the purpose of the grant:
WHEREAS, It has been determined that the County does not have sufficient resources to effectively carry out its obligation under Chapter 84.41 RCW, to revalue real property within its boundaries for ad valorem tax purposes, and WHEREAS, The Legislature of the State of Washington has provided the Department of Revenue with funds to aid counties in revaluation programs, * * *
The revaluation program initiated in 1969 by the King County assessor with state funding was an apparent attempt to comply with RCW 84.41.030, Supra. However, the implementation of the program lacked any resemblance of a comprehensive, systematic, and continuous revaluation program.
As previously discussed in the facts, the revaluation of the 90,000 parcels in phase one of the program was to be a joint effort of the Jacobs Company, Inc. and the King County assessor's office, with the latter responsible for revaluing 20,000 parcels in the Shoreline school district. The record reveals that the assessor had only four or five appraisers out of his 60-member staff working in the Shoreline area prior to May 31, 1970. Revaluations on buildings and improvements were completed on 7,000 parcels with no final values, including land and buildings together, being established. The assessor refrained from placing these new values as to buildings and improvements on the 1970 assessment rolls for 1971 taxes. During this same period, prior to May 31, 1970, the assessor's office revalued the land only on 22,000 parcels, and placed these new values on the 1970 assessment rolls. These parcels were located outside of the phase one area and were not valued pursuant to the new revaluation program; however, these same parcels were to be revalued in subsequent phases of the new program. The explanation for this work was that the assessor's office was attempting to update their old cycle and programs.
The contract between the Jacobs Company, Inc. and King County for the revaluation of 70,000 of the 90,000 parcels in phase one of the program was entered into on October 14, 1969. The contract provided that the first year phase of the revaluation program was to be completed in less than three months by December 31, 1969. However, on October 23, 1969, nine days after the contract was entered into, a work plan was added to the contract dividing the 70,000 parcels into two parts so that the Jacobs Company, Inc. would revalue only 40,000 parcels by April 30, 1970, and the remainder of the 70,000 parcels by December 31, 1970, of which 30,000 parcels would not be eligible for placement on the 1971 tax rolls. The language of the revision is as follows:
Completion Schedule
The completion schedule of work within the Phase I Project Area will be staggered by Parts A and B, west and east of the Seattle Freeway, as follows:
Part A--West of Freeway--all appraisal work in this part of the Phase I Project area will be completed and delivered to the County Assessor May 15, 1970 with new and remodeled structures appraised as of April 30, 1970. Testimony on Part A appraisal before the King County Board of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rocky Mountain Oil and Gas Ass'n v. State Bd. of Equalization
... ... State ex rel. DuPont Plaza Center, Inc., Fla., 166 So.2d 142, 145 (1964); Dore v. Kinnear, 79 Wash.2d 755, 489 P.2d 898 (1971) ... We would also discern that a plan can be legislatively created by action or ... ...
-
Belas v. Kiga
... ... The Supreme Court reached this conclusion in State ex rel. Barlow v. Kinnear, 70 Wash.2d 482, 423 P.2d 937 (1967) ... ... ... The percentage method ... tend[s] to favor property ... See also Morrison v. Rutherford, 83 Wash.2d 153, 154-55, 516 P.2d 1036 (1973) ... In Dore v. Kinnear, 79 Wash.2d 755, 763, 489 P.2d 898 (1971), we reaffirmed the [959 P.2d 1049] importance of the uniformity provision of the state ... ...
-
Justus v. Board of Equalization of Kootenai County
... ... P.2d 965 (1978), or those where gross discrimination has resulted from the assessor's willful departure from an established cyclical program, Dore v. Kinnear, 79 Wash.2d 755, 489 P.2d 898 (1971). It is true that the assessor did deviate from the original 1977 plan by moving back the date of ... ...
-
Alexander v. Town of Barton
... ... The most instructive are the decisions of the Supreme Court of Washington in Carkonen v. Williams, 76 Wash.2d 617, 458 P.2d 280 (1969), and Dore v. Kinnear, 79 Wash.2d 755, 489 P.2d 898 (1971). In Carkonen, the Court upheld a cyclical reappraisal policy under which the assessors would reach ... ...
-
Class Actions-washington Style: a Look at Washington Superior Court Rule 23
...v. Brown, 6 Wash. App. 249, 256, 492 P.2d 581, 585-86 (1971) (permitting class action by residential utility users). 56. 79 Wash. 2d 755, 489 P.2d 898 57. Id. at 767, 489 P.2d at 905. 58. Id. at 783-86, 489 P.2d at 914-15 (Stafford, J., dissenting). 59. The statute required that approximate......