Lenoir v. Madison County

• Decision Date: 04 August 1994
• Docket Number: 93-CA-00253,Nos. 93-CA-00252,s. 93-CA-00252
• Citation: 641 So.2d 1124
• Parties: Martha K. LENOIR v. MADISON COUNTY, Board of Supervisors of Madison County, Mississippi, and Madison County Tax Assessor's Office.
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Page 1124

641 So.2d 1124

Martha K. LENOIR v. MADISON COUNTY, Board of Supervisors of Madison County Mississippi, and Madison County Tax Assessor's Office.

Nos. 93-CA-00252, 93-CA-00253.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Aug. 4, 1994.

Harris H. Barnes, III, William E. Dossett, John V. Eskrigge, Dossett Goode Barnes & Broom, Jackson, for appellant.

G. Dewey Hembree III, C.R. Montgomery, Montgomery Smith-Vaniz & McGraw, Canton, for appellees.

Before DAN M. LEE, P.J., and PITTMAN and JAMES L. ROBERTS, Jr., JJ.

DAN M. LEE, Presiding Justice, for the Court:

Martha K. Lenoir appeals from two Madison County Circuit Court judgments dated February 11, 1993, dismissing her complaints based upon lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We reverse, holding that: (1) Miss.Code Ann. Sec. 11-51-77 (1972), governs appeals to the circuit court from decisions of the county board of supervisors regarding tax matters; and (2) that statute does not require that a bill of exceptions be filed as a prerequisite to the circuit court obtaining subject matter jurisdiction over such matters.

I.

The appeals sub judice are comprised of two complaints from the Madison County Circuit Court in which the plaintiff and defendants of the first case were identical to those of the second case. ¹ Additionally, the substance of both complaints, involving allegations of improper tax assessments, is substantially the same. The appeals have been consolidated for our consideration because, upon dismissal by the lower court, the two cases were in the same procedural posture and pose the identical question of law on appeal.

Since the underlying complaints were dismissed prior to trial, the record before this Court does not include a trial transcript. Additionally, the lower court judge made extremely limited findings, as reiterated supra. Therefore, other than the fact that no Bill of Exceptions was filed, limited facts are available. Regardless, the appeal sub judice turns on a question of law; whether the filing of a bill of exceptions is a prerequisite to an appeal to the circuit court from an adverse decision of the county board of supervisors.

II.

In her complaints, the appellant, Martha K. Lenoir ("Lenoir"), alleged that approximately forty-eight (48) acres of property owned by her was improperly denied agricultural use valuation and assessed with taxes incorrectly. The property is comprised of three parcels of land, in close proximity to each other, located in the City of Madison, Madison County, Mississippi, east of Highway 51, south of Hoy Road, north of Main Street, and west of Old Canton Road.

The subject property is some of the earliest land used for farming purposes in Madison County. Lenoir alleged that, since her family acquired the property, over forty (40) years ago, the subject property has continually been granted agricultural use valuation and the ad valorem taxes on the property have been only a few hundred dollars per year, up to the year 1990. Because of the denial of agricultural use valuation, Lenoir's ad valorem taxes have risen to approximately $95,000.00 per year.

According to Lenoir's allegations, the subject property should have maintained agricultural use valuation for the tax years 1991 and 1992, resulting in lower tax assessments. Lenoir petitioned the Madison County Board of Supervisors for relief, requesting a correction in the taxes assessed, as well as the denial of agricultural land use valuation, in accordance with Miss.Code Ann. Sec. 27-35-119 (1972). However, on September 25, 1992, Lenoir's first petition was denied by the Madison County Board of Supervisors. Lenoir followed by posting the required bond and filing the first of two complaints in circuit court on October 5, 1992, seeking a reduction in the taxes assessed against her property.

The facts underlying the second complaint were much the same as those of the first. On March 30, 1992, Lenoir sought agricultural use valuation status on her property by filing an application with the Madison County Tax Assessor's Office. Her application was denied by the Madison County Board of Supervisors on August 7, 1992. Subsequently, on October 16, 1992, the Madison County Board of Supervisors entered its approval of the assessment roll by the State Tax Commission. Lenoir followed, filing her second complaint on October 26, 1992, in the Madison County Circuit Court, seeking a reduction in real property taxes.

In each complaint, Lenoir was the plaintiff, and she named the same four (4) defendants, as follows:

(1) Madison County;

(2) Board of Supervisors of Madison County, Mississippi;

(3) Madison County Tax Assessor's Office; and,

(4) Ed Buelo, Jr., Commissioner, Mississippi State Tax Commission.

Madison County moved the lower court to dismiss each lawsuit on the ground of lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Additionally, Ed Buelo, Jr., Commissioner, Mississippi State Tax Commission, made a motion to dismiss each complaint based upon other grounds. On April 11, 1993, the lower court dismissed both of Lenoir's complaints, finding that:

(1) Madison County had filed its "Motion for Dismissal" pursuant to M.R.C.P. 12, alleging lack of jurisdiction by the court;

(2) No Bill of Exceptions had been filed by Lenoir in either action;

(3) Pursuant to the cases of McIntosh v. Amacker, 592 So.2d 525 (Miss.1991); Moore v. Sanders, 569 So.2d 1148 (Miss.1990); Shannon Chair Company v. City of Houston, 295 So.2d 753 (Miss.1974), a Bill of Exceptions is the only means to appeal from an Order of the Board of Supervisors; and

(4) Absent a timely filing of a Bill of Exceptions, the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to consider the appeal.

Subsequently, on April 22, 1993, the circuit court judge executed two additional orders dismissing the complaints against Ed Buelo, Jr., Chairman, Mississippi State Tax Commission. Apparently, the last two orders amounted to a ruling on the outstanding motions to dismiss made on behalf of Ed Buelo, Jr., Chairman, Mississippi State Tax Commission, even though the complaints had been dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

III.

Aggrieved, Lenoir filed her notice of appeal for both cases. She states only one (1) issue on appeal, as follows:

Whether the general statute (Miss.Code Ann. Sec. 11-51-75) relating to the appeal of decisions of the Board of Supervisors to the Circuit Court is appropo in this matter, when the specific statute (Miss.Code Ann. Sec. 11-51-77, 1972) relating to the appeal of decisions of the Board of Supervisors regarding assessment of taxes does not require the filing of a Bill of Exceptions, or whether the filing of a Bill of Exceptions, as alluded to in McIntosh v. Amacker, 572 So.2nd [sic] 525 Miss.1991 [sic] is required.

The issue on appeal poses a question of law--whether filing a complaint with the Circuit Court of Madison County vested that court with subject matter jurisdiction over issues regarding tax assessments, or whether a bill of exceptions was required to be filed with the circuit court as a prerequisite to acquisition of subject matter jurisdiction. That question requires a determination of whether the specific statute, which governs appeals from decisions of the board of supervisors regarding assessment of taxes, controls the general statute, which generally addresses appeals to the circuit court from decisions of the board of supervisors. The appellees, Madison County, Board of Supervisors of Madison County, Mississippi, and Madison County Tax Assessor's Office (collectively "Madison County"), assert that all decisions of the board of supervisors appealed to the circuit court require a bill of exceptions to be filed in accordance with the general statute. On the other hand, Lenoir contends that, pursuant to the specific statute, a bill of exceptions is not required if the decision of the board of supervisors which is appealed concerns matters of tax assessment.

A.

The general statute at issue is Miss.Code Ann. Sec. 11-51-75 (1972). It is titled and reads as follows:

Sec. 11-51-75. Appeal to circuit court from board of supervisors, municipal authorities.

Any person aggrieved by a judgment or decision of the board of supervisors, or municipal authorities of a city, town, or village, may appeal within ten (10) days from the date of adjournment at which session the board of supervisors or municipal authorities rendered such judgment or decision, and may embody the facts, judgment and decision in a bill of exceptions which shall be signed by the person acting as president of the board of supervisors or of the municipal authorities. The clerk thereof shall transmit the bill of exceptions to the circuit court at once, and the court shall either in term time or in vacation hear and determine the same on the case as presented by the bill of exceptions as an appellate court, and shall affirm or reverse the judgment. If the judgment be reversed, the circuit court shall render such judgment as the board of municipal authorities ought to have rendered, and certify the same to the board of supervisors or municipal authorities. Costs shall be awarded as in other cases. The board of supervisors or municipal authorities may employ counsel to defend such appeals, to be paid out of the county or municipal treasury. Any such appeal may be heard and determined in vacation in the discretion of the court on motion of either party and written notice for ten (10) days to the other party or parties or the attorney of record, and the hearing of same shall be held in the county where the suit is pending unless the judge in his order shall otherwise direct.

Provided, however, that no appeal to the circuit court shall be taken from any order of the board of supervisors or municipal authorities which authorizes the issuance of sale of bonds, but all objections to any matters relating to the issuance and sale of bonds shall be adjudicated and determined by the chancery court, in accordance with the provisions of ...