In re Proposed Assessment of County Treasurer of Woodbury County Against Lytle Inv. Co.

• Decision Date: 02 April 1935
• Docket Number: 42758.
• Parties: In re PROPOSED ASSESSMENT OF COUNTY TREASURER OF WOODBURY COUNTY AGAINST LYTLE INV. CO. et al.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

260 N.W. 538

219 Iowa 1099

In re PROPOSED ASSESSMENT OF COUNTY TREASURER OF WOODBURY COUNTY AGAINST LYTLE INV. CO. et al.

No. 42758.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

April 2, 1935

Appeal from District Court, Woodbury County; Robert H. Munger Judge.

This is an appeal by the county treasurer and county auditor of Woodbury county from a judgment of the district court holding that no appeal lies to the district court by the county treasurer from an order of the state board of assessment and review vacating taxes listed by the county treasurer upon alleged omitted property.

Affirmed.

A. W Johnson, of Sioux City, and Wright & Baldwin, George S Wright, Addison G. Kistle, and Paul E. Roadifer, all of Council Bluffs, for appellants.

Edwin J. Stason, of Sioux City, for appellees.

RICHARDS, Justice.

On November 18, 1933, F. Price Smith, as county treasurer of Woodbury county, pursuant to section 7155 of the Code, demanded of Lytle Investment Company, C. F. Lytle Construction Company et al., appellees herein, an amount of taxes that had been entered by said county treasurer on his tax list against appellees, claimed by said county treasurer to be due, with interest and penalties, upon property subject to taxation that had been withheld, overlooked, or for other cause not listed and assessed. On December 7, 1933, appellees made an application to the state board of assessment and review to have the taxes, thus levied and assessed, canceled and stricken from the Woodbury county records. A hearing was had thereon before the state board of assessment and review on December 15, 1933, at which hearing the county treasurer appeared and resisted the application. On December 21, 1933, the state board made a finding in favor of the applicants, appellees herein, finding that the said assessment made by the county treasurer on all the stockholders in both the Lytle Investment Company and the C. F. Lytle Construction Company was erroneous and that the same " is hereby abated and declared void, and of no effect," and the county treasurer of Woodbury county, Iowa, was directed and ordered to strike each and all of said assessments for taxes as made by him from his tax list and records. On December 28, 1933, the county treasurer and acting county treasurer of said county served upon the said state board and upon the attorney for appellees a notice of appeal to the district court of Woodbury county, from the order of the state board, and a transcript of the proceedings were filed by the state board in said district court and the cause docketed as a law action. The appellees, against whom said taxes had been assessed, filed a special appearance in the district court predicated upon the ground that the appellants had no right of appeal from said order. Upon a hearing the court sustained the grounds of said special appearance and dismissed the appeal, from which the appellants, F. Price Smith, county treasurer, and W. H. Thompson, county auditor, of Woodbury county, have taken this appeal. The sole question presented is whether the county treasurer had the right to appeal to the district court from the order of the state board.

Code § 6943-c27, subd. 9a, vests the state board of assessment and review, among other powers and duties, with the following:

" 9a. To correct errors, irregularities, or omissions in assessments of individual taxpayers by adding to the tax list any omitted property or by raising, lowering, or abating an assessment found to be erroneous or excessive; provided, that before making any increase in any assessment or assessment of any property as omitted property the board shall notify the owner of record or person assessed with such property by registered mail addressed to such person at his last known place of residence notifying him to appear before said board within ten days from the mailing of said notice and show cause why such increase or addition should not be made; provided, that any party aggrieved by the action of the state board may within twenty days after such action has been taken appeal from the action of the state board to the district court of the county where the

...