Kidder v. Chaffee Cnty. Bd. of Equal.

• Decision Date: 10 November 2011
• Docket Number: No. 10CA2462.,10CA2462.
• Citation: 312 P.3d 1181
• Parties: Fred D. KIDDER, III; and Diann K. Kidder, Petitioners–Appellees, v. CHAFFEE COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, Respondent–Appellant, and Board of Assessment Appeals, Appellee.
• Court: Colorado Court of Appeals

312 P.3d 1181

Fred D. KIDDER, III; and Diann K. Kidder, Petitioners–Appellees,

v. CHAFFEE COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, Respondent–Appellant,andBoard of Assessment Appeals, Appellee.

No. 10CA2462.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. III.

Nov. 10, 2011.

No Appearance for Petitioners–Appellees.

Jennifer A. Davis, County Attorney, Salida, Colorado, for Respondent–Appellant.

Opinion by Judge FOX.

Chaffee County Board of Equalization (BOE) appeals an order of the Board of Assessment Appeals (BAA) reducing the 2009 tax year value of a vacant land parcel in Buena Vista, Colorado (the property). The BOE contends that the BAA's order fails to comply with the time adjustment requirements of section 39–1–104(10.2) (a) and (d), C.R.S.2011. Because the statutory language clearly imposes a duty to value property using a time adjustment analysis, we reverse the order and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I. Background and Procedural History

Fred D. Kidder III and Diann K. Kidder (the taxpayers) own the property in question. The Chaffee County Assessor originally assigned a 2009 tax year value of $146,484 to the property. The taxpayers filed a petition with the BOE challenging the valuation. Following the BOE's denial of the petition, the taxpayers appealed to the BAA.

Before the BAA, the taxpayers requested that the property's actual value for the 2009 tax year be set at $76,199. Relying on an appraisal and a time adjustment analysis by the County Assessor, which takes into account the shift in market conditions over time, the BOE requested that the $146,484 assigned value be reduced to $144,000. The BOE's appraisal was based on three comparable sales ranging in price, before adjustments, from $120,000 to $186,500. In determining the market adjustment for time, the BOE applied a sales ratio trend analysis, one of four techniques recommended by the Property Tax Administrator in the Assessor's Reference Library Manuals. After the BOE's adjustments, the comparable sales ranged from $141,098 to $146,481. The taxpayers relied on three comparable auction sales ranging in price from $88,000 to $120,000; these comparable sale prices were not adjusted for time.

The BAA “gave little weight” to the taxpayers' valuation because the auction sales were not arm's length transactions. The BAA instead relied on two of the three BOE comparable sales, rejecting the third sale because it found that the buyer paid a premium. However, in calculating its valuation of the property, the BAA removed the BOE's time adjustment to the two comparable sales, explaining that the time adjustment was determined using land sales “that may not have been representative of the property's area.” After removing the BOE's time adjustment, the BAA did not apply any alternative time adjustment analysis to the comparable sales. As a result, the BAA valued the property at $131,000, the average of the two comparable sales without a time adjustment.¹

II. Standard of Review

The BOE may seek review of procedural or legal errors within thirty days of the BAA's decision. § 39–1–108(2), C.R.S.2011. Because the BOE filed its notice of appeal within the thirty-day period, we review the BAA's decision for procedural or legal errors.

In a BAA proceeding, a taxpayer must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessor's valuation is incorrect. Bd. of Assessment Appeals v. Sampson, 105 P.3d 198, 204 (Colo.2005). We review an administrative agency's conclusions of law de novo. Davison v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 84 P.3d 1023, 1029 (Colo.2004); see§ 24–4–106(7), (11)(e), C.R.S.2011. If an agency action is contrary to law, we must hold the action unlawful and remand the case for further proceedings. § 24–4–106(7), (11)(e).

In interpreting a statute, a reviewing court must determine and give effect to the intent of the legislature. Davison, 84 P.3d at 1029. If the language is clear, we interpret the statute according to its plain and ordinary meaning. Id.

III. Removal of Time Adjustment

Section 39–1–104(10.2)(a) and (d) provides that comparative sales data “shall be adjusted to the final day of the data gathering period.” When the word “shall” is used in a statute, it ordinarily creates a mandatory obligation. Hodges v. People, 158 P.3d...