Fisher v. Golden Valley Bd. of County Com'rs
| Decision Date | 17 February 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 9045,9045 |
| Citation | 226 N.W.2d 636 |
| Parties | Dewey FISHER, Appellant and Appellee, v. GOLDEN VALLEY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS et al., Respondents andAppellants. Allen Dewey FISHER, Appellant and Appellee, v. GOLDEN VALLEY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS et al., Respondents andAppellants. Russell KIKER, Sr., Appellant and Appellee, v. GOLDEN VALLEY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS et al., Respondents andAppellants. Russell KIRKER, Jr., Appellant and Appellee, v. GOLDEN VALLEY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS et al., Respondents andAppellants. Richard KNOPP, Appellant and Appellee, v. GOLDEN VALLEY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS et al., Respondents andAppellants. Max NORTHROP, Appellant and Appellee, v. GOLDEN VALLEY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS et al., Respondents andAppellants. Patrick PLUMMER, Appellant and Appellee, v. GOLDEN VALLEY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS et al., Respondents andAppellants. Ernest STARK, Appellant and Appellee, v. GOLDEN VALLEY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS et al., Respondents andAppellants. Civ. |
| Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Because of the delay in perfecting this appeal and the stipulation of counsel, the merits of the appeal are decided notwithstanding that this case might otherwise be dismissed without reaching the merits under Rule 54(b), N.D.R.Civ.P.
2. In light of the decision in Appeal of Johnson, 173 N.W.2d 475 (N.D.1970), the direction which other courts have taken more recently in stressing the imortance of notice and hearing before assessments of property may be increased beyond a certain percentage or amount, and the statutory requirement that a landowner who desires to appear before the State Board of Equalization must first appear before the local Board and the County Board of Equalization, which appearances would be difficult unless the landowners received prior notices, it is held that the failure to give the notices of increase in the assessment of the property in the instant cases was jurisdictional and thus that the increase in the assessment exceeding 15 percent of the previous assessment was illegal.
Rolfstad, Winkjer, Suess, McKennett & Kaiser, P.C., Williston, for appellees.
Orrin B. Lovell, State's Atty., Beach, for appellant Golden Valley Board of County Commissioners.
Bair, Brown & Kautzmann, Mandan, for appellants Golden Valley Board of County Commissioners and Lone Tree School District.
Kenneth M. Jakes, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Bismarck, for the North Dakota State Tax Commissioner, appellant.
In April of 1972 eight landowners of Golden Valley County filed separate applications for abatement and settlement of taxes with the County Auditor of Golden Valley County. After consideration and determination of the applications by the Board of County Commissioners, the landowners separately filed notices of appeal with the District Court of Golden Valley County. Upon consideration of the appeals, the trial court rendered its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and ordered judgment in favor of the landowners on April 22, 1974. It is from the judgment entered thereon dated April 24, 1974, that the Board of County Commissioners of Golden Valley, the North Dakota State Tax Commissioner, and the Lone Tree School District appeal to our Court.
Pertinent parts of the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order for judgment of the trial court will aid us in discussing this case. We quote therefrom:
'That the taxpayer-appellants own real property in the unorganized Township One Hundred Thirty-six (136) Range One Hundred Five (105) and Township One Hundred Thirty-six (136) Range One Hundred Six (106), Golden Valley County, North Dakota.
'II.
'That this action is the result of a timely appeal from the Golden Valley Board of County Commissioners hearing on the taxpayer's abatement petitions.
'III.
'That the taxpayer-appellants paid their real estate taxes for the year 1971 under protest.
'IV.
'That the Golden Valley Board of County Commissioners did not provide for the election of a district assessor to serve for the year 1971 in the unorganized Township One Hundred Thirty-six (136) Range One Hundred Five (105) and Township One Hundred Thirty-six (136) Range One Hundred Six (106), situated in Golden Valley County, North Dakota.
'V.
'That the Golden Valley Board of County Commissioners in the summer of 1971 informally designated the County Director of Tax Equalization to act as a district assessor for all unorganized territories in Golden Valley County, North Dakota.
'VI.
'That the County Director of Tax Equalization who served as a district assessor in Township One Hundred Thirty-six (136) Range One Hundred Five (105) and Township One Hundred Thirty-six (136) Range One Hundred Six (106) did not own real property or personal property, nor was he a registered voter in either of those unorganized Townships.
'VII.
'That the County Director of Tax Equalization acting as the district assessor completed the assessment prior to June 1, 1971.
'VIII.
'That the County Director of Tax Equalization acting as district assessor returned the assessment rolls for Township One Hundred Thirty-six (136) Range One Hundred
Five (105) and Township One Hundred Thirty-six (136) Range One Hundred Six (106) to the County Auditor after June 1, 1971, and before July 1, 1971, but he did not complete the assessor's oath.
'IX.
'That the County Director of Tax Equalization acting as the district assessor, did assess real property in units greater than one quarter section, but no real property was assessed in units greater than one full section.
'X.
'That in the year 1971, the County Director of Tax Equalization, acting as a local assessor for unorganized territories, made assessment increases exceeding 15% Over the 1969 assessed valuation upon real property owned by taxpayer-appellants.
'XI.
'That the County Director of Tax Equalization acting as a district assessor on July 26--July 31, 1971, prepared on his own form a 'Notice of Increased Assessments' to taxpayers who own units of real property in Township One Hundred Thirty-six (136) Range One Hundred Five (105) and Township One Hundred Thirty-six (136) Range One Hundred Six (106), whose assessments he had increased more than 15% Over the 1969 assessments.
'XII.
'That the Notice of Increased Assessments was received by the taxpayers in Township One Hundred Thirty-six (136) Range One Hundred Five (105) and Township One Hundred Thirty-six (136) Range One Hundred Six (106) in envelopes postmarked between the 29th and 31st days of July, 1971.
'XIII.
'That the Board of County Commissioners of Golden Valley County sitting as a County Board of Equalization met on the Sixth day of July, 1971, and taking no action, adjourned, and reconvened on the 15th day of July 1971, when it equalized the assessed valuations for the unorganized townships. The Board again adjourned and reconvened on the 26th day of July, 1971, when sitting as the County Board of Equalization, they equalized the assessments for the County.
'XIV.
'That the taxpayers in Township One Hundred Thirty-six (136) Range One Hundred Five (105) and Township One Hundred Thirty-six (136) Range One Hundred Six (106) were not sent nor did they receive written notice of assessment increase until after the Board of County Commissioners had met and adjourned as both the local board and County Board of Equalization.
'XV.
'That the Taxpayers in Township One Hundred Thirty-six (136) Range One Hundred Five (105) and Township One Hundred Thirty-six (136) Range One Hundred Six (106) did not receive any other notice, actual or constructive, of the assessment increase prior to the Local or County Boards of Equalization meetings.
'From the foregoing facts, the Court makes the following:
'That the North Dakota Century Code in 57--02--33 provides for proper election of a District Assessor and further sets forth the qualifications for any person eligible to become a District Assessor.
'II.
'That the failure of the Golden Valley Board of County Commissioners to provide
for a proper election of a district assessor or appoint a statutorily qualified district assessor did not invalidate the assessment as the County Director of Tax Equalization acting as a district assessor was a de facto assessor and could make a valid assessment.
III.
'That the North Dakota Century Code in 57--09--06 requires that the assessor be sworn on his oath when he returns the assessment rolls to the Auditor. The failure of the District Assessor to be sworn on his oath at the time he returned the assessment rolls to the County Auditor did not invalidate the assessment.
'IV.
'That the North Dakota Century Code in 57--02--38 provides for the assessment of real property in units no larger than one quarter section. That the failure of the County Director of Tax Equalization acting as a district assessor in assessing real property in units no greater than one quarter section does not invalidate the assessment.
'V.
'That the North Dakota Century Code in 57--12--09 provides that when any assessor or County Board of Equalization increases the assessed valuation on any lot or tract of land 15% More than the last assessment on that lot or tract of real estate, written notice shall be given to the property owner at his last known address.
'VI.
'That the failure of the County Director of Tax Equalization acting as a local assessor to send notice of increase in 1971 when he increased a real property unit's assessed valuation 15% Or more above the 1969 assessed valuation prior to the meeting of the Local Board of Equalization and The County Board of Equalization, invalidates that portion of the increase exceeding 15%.
'VII.
'That the North Dakota Century Code in 57--12--02 grants to the County Commissioners the authority to act as the Local Board of Tax Equalization for all unorganized territories.
'VIII.
'That the North Dakota...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Minch v. City of Fargo
...on the merits after the final judgment had been entered. Hodny v. Hoyt, 243 N.W.2d 350 (N.D.1976). In Fisher v. Golden Valley Bd. of County Com'rs., 226 N.W.2d 636, 642 (N.D.1975), we did not dismiss an appeal which would have been required by Rule 54(b) where there was a stipulation that n......
-
Joyce v. Town of Tainter
...here. Further, at least one other state has applied the doctrine to validate assessments. See Fisher v. Golden Valley Bd. of County Comm'rs, 226 N.W.2d 636, 640, 642-43 (N.D. 1975) (failure to provide a proper election of assessor or appoint a statutorily qualified assessor, and failure to ......
-
Plains Mktg., LP v. Mountrail Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 20150346.
...at N.D.C.C. § 57–02–53, before issuing the May 2013 notices of increases to the property owners. See Fisher v. Golden Valley Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs, 226 N.W.2d 636, 647 (N.D.1975) (holding notice requirement of N.D.C.C. § 57–12–09 is jurisdictional, and if notice is not provided to property ow......
-
Trollwood Village Ltd. Partnership v. Cass County Bd. of County Com'rs, 960162
...and full value of the property and the meeting dates for the local and county boards of equalization. In Fisher v. Golden Valley Bd. of County Comm'rs, 226 N.W.2d 636, 647 (N.D.1975), this Court held the notice requirement of an earlier version of N.D.C.C. § 57-12-09 was jurisdictional, and......