Hartland Prop. LLC v. Town of Hartland
| Citation | 237 A.3d 696 |
| Decision Date | 26 June 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 19-345,19-345 |
| Parties | HARTLAND PROPERTY LLC v. TOWN OF HARTLAND |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Vermont |
Stephen F. Coteus of Tarrant, Gillies & Richardson, Montpelier, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Robert E. Fletcher of Stitzel, Page & Fletcher, P.C., Burlington, for Defendant-Appellee.
PRESENT: Reiber, C.J., Robinson, Eaton, Carroll and Cohen, JJ.
¶ 1. In this appeal, we consider what consequences, if any, result when town listers commence grievance hearings after the applicable statutory deadline without getting an extension of time from the Director of the Department of Taxes’ Division of Property Valuation and Review (PVR). Taxpayer, Hartland Property LLC, sought review of the Town of Hartland's 2018 reassessment of its property pursuant to Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 75, and the trial court affirmed the Town's assessment. On appeal to this Court, taxpayer argues that the Town's assessment of its property is invalid because the listers began the grievance hearings two days after the statutorily designated start date. It contends that it owes either no property tax for that year or the assessed amount from the prior year. We conclude that the statutory timelines for town listers to commence grievance hearings are directory rather than mandatory, and accordingly affirm the trial court's judgment.
¶ 2. The material facts are undisputed. Taxpayer owns just under sixty acres of improved land in the Town of Hartland. The property includes a cape-style residence, a one-and-a-half-story two-car garage, a gambrel barn, a newer animal barn, a chicken coop, and five tourist cabins built as part of taxpayer's plan to transform the property into an agri-tourism enterprise.
¶ 3. Taxpayer grieved the Town's 2018 assessment of its property. Pursuant to the applicable statutes discussed below, the last date for the Town to commence grievance hearings for that tax year was June 19, 2018. The town listers commenced grievance hearings, including taxpayer's grievance, two days later, on June 21, without securing an extension of time from the PVR Director pursuant to 32 V.S.A. § 4342. The town listers completed the grievance hearings the next day, June 22, ten days prior to the statutory deadline, and decided taxpayer's grievance on June 27. The town listers lodged the corrected abstracts of the individual taxpayers in the office of the town clerk on July 10, fifteen days before the statutory deadline.
¶ 4. That same day, July 10, 2018, taxpayer appealed to the town board of civil authority (BCA).1 On August 23, 2018, following a July 25 hearing, the BCA issued a decision modestly lowering the Town's assessment of the subject property.
¶ 5. Taxpayer appealed the BCA's assessment to the civil division of the superior court. The parties filed cross-motions for partial summary judgment addressing whether the Town's assessment was invalid due to the listers’ late start of taxpayer's grievance hearing. The court granted the Town partial summary judgment on that issue, concluding that the statute providing that grievance hearings are to be commenced by a specified date is directory, rather than mandatory, and that the Town's failure to meet the timeline did not therefore invalidate its valuation.
¶ 6. Following the court's decision, taxpayer filed a motion for entry of final judgment so that it could appeal the May 17 decision. By doing so, taxpayer abandoned its challenge to the merits of the Town's assessment of its property for the 2018 tax year and relied entirely on its procedural challenge based on the date the grievance hearing commenced. The Town did not oppose taxpayer's motion, but it moved to strike as irrelevant certain statements in the motion and attached affidavit.2 The court granted the motion for entry of final judgment, as well as the Town's motion to strike elements of taxpayer's motion referencing the Town's 2019 assessment of taxpayer's property.
¶ 7. For the most part, the statutes relevant to our analysis are in chapter 129 of Title 32, which we have described as "a comprehensive system that establishes the timeliness and processes for the annual development of the property tax grand list in each community." Murdoch v. Town of Shelburne, 2007 VT 93, ¶ 6, 182 Vt. 587, 939 A.2d 458 (mem.). That system "requires towns, on an annual basis, to gather property inventories, make fair market value appraisals of properties, generate individual tax lists and compile them into the abstract, notify individual taxpayers of the assessments, provide an opportunity for grievances, make corrections, and file the grand list with the town clerk." Id.
Id. § 4111(c).
¶ 9. Consistent with this, a subsequent section further provides that "[o]n or before May 20, the listers shall meet at the place so designated by them and on that day and from day to day thereafter shall hear persons aggrieved by their appraisals ... until all questions and objections are heard and decided." Id. § 4221. The section further requires the listers to make any corrections to the abstract certificates and "forward to each taxpayer a copy of any certificate relating to his or her list." Id. Pursuant to that section, "[s]uch hearings shall not be held later than June 2." Id.
¶ 10. The statutes provide for adjustment of the statutory timetable based on a town's size. In particular, for towns with fewer than 5000 inhabitants (like the Town of Hartland), § 4341 extends various benchmarks in the timeline for building the grand list for thirty days. The extension applies to the dates by which (1) abstracts of individual lists must be lodged in the town clerk's office; (2) "meetings of listers may be held to hear grievances"; (3) grievance hearings must be completed; (4) the BCA must meet to consider appeals; (5) BCA hearings must be completed; (6) the grand list must be completed and deposited in the town clerk's office; (7) the listers must lodge inventories of taxpayers with the town clerk; and (8) abstracts of the grand list must be filed with the town clerk. Id.
¶ 11. Even with this adjustment, these timelines may be further extended as follows:
On written application therefor made by the listers or assessors of any town, with the approval of the Selectboard of the town or mayor of the city, the several dates fixed by law and extended by [§ 4341] ... on or before which certain acts must be done relating to the duties of listers and assessors, may be further extended by the Director and such extensions shall be in writing and shall be recorded in the office of the town clerk.
Id. § 4342.
¶ 12. In this case, given the automatic extension provided by § 4341 for when grievance hearings may be held as set forth in § 4221, the grievance hearings should have commenced no later than June 19, 2018, absent an additional extension of time granted by the PVR Director. Instead, the town listers commenced the hearings two days later, on June 21, without obtaining an additional extension of time from the PVR Director.
¶ 13. On appeal to this Court, taxpayer argues that the Town's 2018 assessment is invalid because the Town commenced grievance hearings after the statutory deadline. There is no dispute that the applicable statute establishes a clear date by which the listers must meet to begin hearing grievances. The statute expressly provides that "[o]n or before" the designated date, "the listers shall meet at the place so designated by them and on that day and from day to day thereafter shall hear persons aggrieved by their appraisals or by any of their acts until all questions and objections are heard and decided." Id. § 4221. The contested issue is whether the listers’ failure to meet this timeline invalidates the Town's 2018 reassessment of taxpayer's property.3
¶ 14. Because this is a legal issue of statutory construction, our review is nondeferential. See Vt. Human Rights Comm'n v. State, Agency of Transp., 2012 VT 88, ¶ 7, 192 Vt. 552, 60 A.3d 702 (). "In construing a statute, our paramount goal is to effectuate the Legislature's intent as evidenced by the plain, ordinary meaning of the language used." Murdoch, 2007 VT 93, ¶ 5, 182 Vt. 587, 939 A.2d 458 (quotation omitted). If the statutory language leaves doubt as to legislative intent, "we look beyond the language of a particular section standing alone to the whole statute, the subject matter, its effects and consequences, and the reason and spirit of the law." State v. Love, 2017 VT 75, ¶ 9, 205 Vt. 418, 174 A.3d 761 (quotation omitted).
¶ 15. Upon review of the applicable provisions of the statute, we conclude that the listers’ failure to commence grievance hearings by the appointed date does not invalidate the Town's 2018 reappraisal of taxpayer's property for several reasons. First and foremost, the provision directing listers to begin grievance hearings by a specified date bears the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Acorn Energy Solar 2, LLC
...and a specified consequence for failure to comply with the time limit." Hartland Prop. LLC v. Town of Hartford, 2020 VT 56, ¶ 16, ––– Vt. ––––, 237 A.3d 696 (quotation omitted). Section 314(b)(2) contains an express requirement that an action be undertaken within a particular time—the publi......
- Athens Sch. Dist. v. Vt. State Bd. of Educ.
-
In re Acorn Energy Solar 2, LLC
...and a specified consequence for failure to comply with the time limit." Hartland Prop. LLC v. Town of Hartford, 2020 VT 56, ¶ 16, ___ Vt. ___, 237 A.3d 696 (quotation omitted). Section 314(b)(2) contains an express requirement that an action be undertaken within a particular time—the public......