In the Matter of Appeal of Grand Forks Homes Inc. v. State , 20100198.

• Decision Date: 22 March 2011
• Docket Number: No. 20100198.,20100198.
• Citation: 2011 ND 65,795 N.W.2d 335
• Parties: In the Matter of Appeal of GRAND FORKS HOMES, INC.; Continental Homes, Inc.; Homestead Place; MDI Limited Partnership # 35; Faith & Hope, LP; Terzetto Village, LLC; and GFH Supportive Housing, LLC, Appellantsv.STATE of North Dakota, by and through STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, and Grand Forks County, Appellees.
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

795 N.W.2d 335

2011 ND 65

In the Matter of Appeal of GRAND FORKS HOMES, INC.; Continental Homes, Inc.; Homestead Place; MDI Limited Partnership # 35; Faith & Hope, LP; Terzetto Village, LLC; and GFH Supportive Housing, LLC, Appellants

v.STATE of North Dakota, by and through STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, and Grand Forks County, Appellees.

No. 20100198.

Supreme Court of North Dakota.

March 22, 2011.

Russell John Melland, Grand Forks, N.D., for appellants.Daniel Lucian Rouse (argued), Donnita Ann Wald (appeared), Special Assistants to the State Board of Equalization, Office of State Tax Commissioner, Bismarck, N.D., for appellee State of North Dakota, by and through State Board of Equalization.John Alan Warcup, Special Assistant State's Attorney, Grand Forks, N.D., for appellee Grand Forks County.SANDSTROM, Justice.

[¶ 1] Grand Forks Homes, Inc., and several other property owners (collectively “property owners”) appeal from a district court judgment dismissing their appeals from decisions of the State Board of Equalization (“State Board”) and the Grand Forks Board of County Commissioners (“County Board”) denying their applications for exemptions from real estate taxes. The property owners also challenge the court's denial of their motions to amend the pleadings to seek a writ of mandamus and to allow the filing of amici curiae briefs. We conclude the court did not err in dismissing the property owners' appeals because the State Board had no authority to grant their requests for tax exemptions and the property owners' appeal from the County Board's decision was untimely. We further conclude the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the property owners' motions. We affirm.

I

[¶ 2] Most of the property owners are nonprofit corporations that own and operate apartment complexes in Grand Forks and rent units to low-income families or to physically or mentally disabled persons. They are described in more detail in Grand Forks Homes, Inc. v. Grand Forks Bd. of County Comm'rs, 2011 ND 50, ¶¶ 2–4, 795 N.W.2d 381. GFH Supportive Housing, LLC, which was not a party in that case, is a limited liability company described in this record as “an initiative for transitional housing in the City of Grand Forks” and the “recipient of a Community Development Block Grant, [which] provides a public benefit, and is a charitable, non-profit.”

[¶ 3] The property owners filed applications with the city of Grand Forks for real estate tax exemptions for 2009, claiming their properties were exempt from taxation under N.D. Const. art. X, § 5, and N.D.C.C. § 57–02–08(8) because they are used for charitable or other public purposes. After the city denied the applications, the property owners appealed to the County Board, acting as the Grand Forks County Board of Equalization. The County Board denied the requests for tax exemptions on July 7, 2009. The property owners then appealed the County Board's decision to the State Board, which made no change to the assessments. On October 22, 2009, the property owners appealed the September 22, 2009, State Board decision and the July 7, 2009, County Board decision to district court.

[¶ 4] The State Board and the County Board moved to dismiss the property owners' appeals. In response, the property owners sought to amend their pleadings to seek a writ of mandamus directing the State Board to act on their tax exemption requests. The property owners also moved to allow the filing of amici curiae briefs in district court. The court ruled the State Board had no authority to grant the property owners' requested relief and dismissed their appeal from the County Board's decision because it was not filed within 30 days from the County Board's July 7, 2009, decision. The court denied the motion to amend the pleadings, concluding it could not issue a writ of mandamus directing the State Board to perform an act it had no authority to perform. The court also denied the property owners' request to allow the filing of amici curiae briefs.

II

[¶ 5] The property owners argue the district court erred in concluding the State Board had no legal authority to determine whether their properties are entitled to charitable tax exemptions under state law.

[¶ 6] Assessment of taxable property in this state is addressed in N.D. Const. art. X, § 4, which provides in relevant part:

All taxable property except as hereinafter in this section provided, shall be assessed in the county, city, township, village or district in which it is situated, in the manner prescribed by law. The property, including franchises of all railroads operated in this state, and of all express companies, freight line companies, dining car companies, sleeping car companies, car equipment companies, or private car line companies, telegraph or telephone companies, the property of any person, firm or corporation used for the purpose of furnishing electric light, heat or power, or in distributing the same for public use, and the property of any other corporation, firm or individual now or hereafter operating in this state, and used directly or indirectly in the carrying of persons, property or messages, shall be assessed by the state board of equalization in a manner prescribed by such state board or commission as may be provided by law.

The State Board is given the constitutional authority to make assessments of “centrally assessed property” owned by statewide entities. Soo Line R.R. Co. v. State, 286 N.W.2d 459, 465 (N.D.1979).

[¶ 7] Statutes address “locally assessed property,” Soo Line R.R. Co., 286 N.W.2d at 465, and outline the assessment duties of the various local taxing jurisdictions. See N.D.C.C. chs. 57–09 (township board of equalization), 57–11 (city board of equalization), and 57–12 (county board of equalization). Under N.D.C.C. § 57–02–11(1), “[a]ll real property subject to taxation must be listed and assessed every year with reference to its value” by a local taxing jurisdiction. Section 57–02–14, N.D.C.C., provides that in assessing property, “the assessor shall enter in a separate list each description of property exempt by law and shall value it in the same manner as other property, designating in each case to whom such property belongs and for what purpose used.” A person or entity claiming a tax exemption must file a certificate with “the assessor and with the county auditor,” and if no certificate is filed, “the assessor shall regard the property as nonexempt property and shall assess it as such.” N.D.C.C. § 57–02–14.1.

[¶ 8] Under N.D.C.C. § 57–09–04, the “township board of equalization shall ascertain whether all taxable property in its township has been properly placed upon the assessment list and duly valued by the assessor.” Under N.D.C.C. § 57–11–03, a city “board of equalization shall proceed to equalize and correct the assessment roll” and “may change the valuation and assessment of any real property upon the roll by increasing or diminishing the assessed valuation thereof as is reasonable and just to render taxation uniform....” Under N.D.C.C. § 57–12–04, a “county board of equalization shall examine and compare the assessments returned by the assessors of all the districts within the county and shall proceed to equalize the same throughout the county between the several assessment districts.”

[¶ 9] The North Dakota Constitution directs that “[t]axes shall be uniform upon the same class of property including franchises within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax.” N.D. Const. art. X, § 5. The State Board, comprised of the “governor, state treasurer, state auditor, agriculture commissioner, and state tax commissioner,” N.D.C.C. § 57–13–01, meets on the first Tuesday of August to “assess all of the taxable property which such board is required to assess,” N.D.C.C. § 57–13–02, and meets on the second Tuesday of August to “examine and compare the returns of the assessment of taxable property as returned by the several counties in the state, and shall proceed to equalize the same so that all assessments of similar taxable property are uniform and equal throughout the state....” N.D.C.C. § 57–13–03.

[¶ 10] The State Board performs its duties “by adding to the aggregate value thereof in any assessment district in a county and in every county in the state in which the board may believe the valuation too low, such percentage rate as will raise the same to its proper value ..., and by deducting from the aggregate assessed value thereof, in any assessment district in a county and every county in the state in which the board may believe the value too high, such percentage as will reduce the same to its proper value....” N.D.C.C. § 57–13–04(1). The State Board may also raise or lower assessments with regard to equalizing aggregate parcels of property, see N.D.C.C. § 57–13–04(2), and equalizing individual assessments. See N.D.C.C. § 57–13–04(3)(a) and (b).

[¶ 11] We see nothing in the Constitution or in this statutory scheme providing the State Board with the authority to reclassify as tax exempt locally assessed properties. We give words in constitutional and statutory provisions their plain, ordinary, and commonly understood meaning. Thompson v. Jaeger, 2010 ND 174, ¶ 7, 788 N.W.2d 586; Arnegard v. Cayko, 2010 ND 83, ¶ 10, 782 N.W.2d 54. An “assessment” differs from an “exemption.” An “assessment” has been defined as, “[i]n a general sense, the process of ascertaining and adjusting the shares respectively to be contributed by several persons towards a common beneficial object according to the benefit received. A valuation or a determination as to value of property.” Black's Law Dictionary 116 (6th ed.1990); see also Merriam–Webster's Collegiate

Dictionary

74 (11th ed.2003). An “exemption” is defined as “[f]reedom from a general duty or service; immunity from a general burden, tax, or charge.” Black's Law Dictionary 571 (6th ed.1990); see also Merriam–Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 437 (11th ed.2003)....