Maricopa County v. Arizona Tax Court
| Decision Date | 21 September 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,CA-SA,1 |
| Citation | 162 Ariz. 64,781 P.2d 41 |
| Parties | MARICOPA COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Arizona, Petitioner, v. ARIZONA TAX COURT, the Honorable William T. Moroney, a judge thereof, Respondent Judge, FORTY NORTH CENTER PARTNERS, and J.H. Allred, J.L. Allred, and F.D. Allred, Real Parties in Interest. 89-079-TX. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
This special action raises the question of the proper interpretation of A.R.S. § 42-177(D) dealing with service of a copy of the notice of appeal taken pursuant to A.R.S. § 42-177. Counsel for the real parties in interest attempted service of the notices of appeal on petitioner, Maricopa County, by serving the Maricopa County Attorney's Office by certified mail. Maricopa County moved to dismiss both appeals, arguing that service on the Maricopa County Attorney did not comply with A.R.S. § 42-177(D). In opinions published pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-171, the tax court held that the real parties in interest had properly served Maricopa County. Allred v. Maricopa County, 160 Ariz. 587, 774 P.2d 1377 (Tax Ct.1989); Forty North Center Partners v. Maricopa County, 160 Ariz. 591, 774 P.2d 1381 (Tax Ct.1989).
Because we determined that the tax court incorrectly interpreted A.R.S § 42-177(D), and that the court's opinions in Allred and Forty North Center Partners would likely introduce error into a significant number of property tax appeals before the issue can be resolved on appeal, we accepted jurisdiction in this special action. Under the circumstances of these cases, however, we denied the requested relief. This opinion sets forth our reasoning.
Real parties in interest J.H. Allred, J.L. Allred, and F.D. Allred (Allred) commenced Arizona Tax Court No. TX 88-00531 pursuant to A.R.S. § 42-176 as an appeal from a State Board of Tax Appeals decision concerning the valuation of certain real property in Maricopa County. Real party in interest Forty North Center Partners (Forty North) commenced Arizona Tax Court No. TX 88-00532 pursuant to A.R.S. § 42-246 as a direct appeal from a real property valuation by the Maricopa County Assessor. Both actions were timely filed in the tax court on November 1, 1988. See A.R.S. § 42-176(B); A.R.S. § 42-246; A.R.S. § 12-161 et seq.
As provided by A.R.S. §§ 42-176(A) and 42-246, the procedure for filing these actions was governed by A.R.S. § 42-177. That statute provides in pertinent part:
A. An appeal to the superior court relative to valuation or classification of property is commenced by filing a notice of appeal with the superior court in the county where the property which is the subject of the appeal is located....
B. The notice of appeal shall contain a statement of the reasons why the valuation or classification is excessive or erroneous.
C. The clerk of the superior court shall docket the appeal in the name of the appellant as plaintiff and of the state or county, whichever is appropriate, and the department as defendants....
D. A copy of the notice of appeal shall be served on the defendant or defendants and the state board of tax appeals within ten days of filing, in the manner provided for service of process in the rules of civil procedure or by certified or registered mail. An affidavit showing such service shall be filed with the clerk of the court....
....
(Emphasis added.) In each action a copy of the notice of appeal was sent by certified mail to the Maricopa County Attorney's Office and was received on November 9, 1988. In neither case was a copy of the notice of appeal served on the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors prior to November 11, 1988.
On November 29, 1988, Maricopa County moved to dismiss both actions for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, lack of jurisdiction over the person, and insufficiency of service of process. See Rules 12(b)(1), (2) and (5), Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure. On December 12, 1988, Allred and Forty North sent copies of their notices of appeal to the clerk of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors by certified mail. On or about December 15, 1988, Allred and Forty North filed responses to Maricopa County's motions to dismiss.
The tax court denied the motions to dismiss. Maricopa County moved unsuccessfully for reconsideration in No. TX 88-00532. On March 30, 1989, the tax court filed its written opinions in Allred and Forty North Center Partners. Maricopa County then sought special action relief in this court.
In Allred, the tax court recognized that "service of process" on the state or a county pursuant to A.R.S. § 42-177(D) is governed by Rule 4(d)(7) and (8), Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, which provide in pertinent part:
Service shall be made as follows:
....
7. Upon the state, by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the attorney general.
8. Upon a county or a municipal corporation or other governmental subdivision of the state subject to suit, by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the chief executive officer, the secretary, clerk, or recording officer thereof.
The tax court properly defined the issue before it as whether, under the language of A.R.S. § 42-177(D), service on a county may be made by serving the notice of appeal "on the County's attorney." 160 Ariz. at 588, 774 P.2d at 1378. The tax court noted:
It is clear that the Legislature intended a procedure for resolving property classification and valuation disputes that would be as swift and as easy as could reasonably be. Indeed, the announced legislative purpose of A.R.S. § 42-177 as originally passed, was to simplify the methods of taking such appeals. Arizona Dept. of Revenue v. Navopache Electric Co-op, Inc., 151 Ariz. 318, 727 P.2d 813 (App.1986). Therefore, the intent of the Legislature will best be reflected by an interpretation of the service requirements of A.R.S. § 42-177 which provides for the simplest and fastest method of getting effective notice to an adversary.
Id. at 589, 774 P.2d at 1379 (footnote omitted). We agree that this is the legislative intent.
The tax court went on to note that, under Navopache Electric Co-op, a property tax appeal is still an "appeal," even though all issues of fact as well as law are determined by the superior court sitting as an appellate court. Id. The court further noted that in civil cases in Arizona, notices of appeal are ordinarily served on an appellee's attorney. The court then reasoned:
The statute identifies the county and the Department of Revenue as the taxing authorities necessary to the appeal. Rule 4 of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides that service may be made on the State by service upon the Attorney General. Therefore, if the statute were to be interpreted as Maricopa County would have it interpreted, service is to be made on the County's co-defendant by service on its attorney. The Court is of the opinion that the Legislature did not intend two standards for service of the notice of appeal as between the State and the County.
Turning to the specific language of A.R.S. § 42-177(D), the tax court stated:
[T]he Court interprets the term "manner required [sic] for service of process" in the Rules of Civil Procedure to mean personal service by a licensed process server, and nothing more. The Legislature did not intend by its reference to "the rules of civil procedure" to designate those persons upon whom the notice must be served. Construed otherwise, the statute would be ambiguous in that it would specifically identify to whom service is to be made by personal service, but say nothing of to whom service may be made by mail.
....
The Court holds that the quoted language in A.R.S. § 42-177(D) requires service of the notice of appeal by one of three methods: personal service by a person licensed to serve process, certified mail, or registered mail. The statute does not identify or limit those upon whom service must be made for such service to be effective.
The Court further holds that service upon a party's attorney is appropriate service for jurisdiction to attach pursuant to A.R.S. § 42-177 if all of the other requirements reflected in the statute are achieved.
....
As the taxpayers herein point out, A.R.S. § 11-532(A)(9) identifies the County Attorney as the attorney for the Board of Supervisors. The Court, therefore, refines its decision to hold that service of the notice of appeal prescribed in A.R.S. § 42-177 may be made upon an attorney for a party if that attorney represented the party in the proceeding from which the appeal was taken and has not withdrawn, or if that attorney's representation of the party is mandated by statute.
The tax court took note of our decision in Blauvelt v. County of Maricopa, 160 Ariz. 77, 770 P.2d 381 (App.1988), in which we interpreted Rule 4(d)(8) to require that a prelitigation notice of claim against a county made pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-821(A) be served on the board of supervisors or the board's clerk. We further held that service on the county attorney did not satisfy the requirements of the rule. Id. at 80, 770 P.2d at 384. The tax court distinguished Blauvelt on three grounds: (1) A.R.S. § 12-821(A) provides for the filing of a demand upon the county for compensation and not for the service of a notice of appeal; (2) A.R.S. § 12-821(A) specifically incorporates Rule 4(d), while A.R.S. § 42-177(D) refers only generally to the Rules of Civil Procedure; and (3) the legislative purpose in providing for property tax appeals differed from that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
E.C. Garcia and Co., Inc. v. Arizona State Dept. of Revenue
...or by certified mail. An affidavit showing such service shall be filed with the clerk of the court. In Maricopa County v. Arizona Tax Court, 162 Ariz. 64, 70, 781 P.2d 41, 47 (App.1989), we recently In our opinion, the ten-day service requirement of A.R.S. § 42-177(D) can be analogized to t......
-
Patterson v. Maricopa County Sheriff's Office
...redundant or contradictory. See State v. Superior Ct., 113 Ariz. 248, 249, 550 P.2d 626, 627 (1976); Maricopa County v. Arizona Tax Ct., 162 Ariz. 64, 68, 781 P.2d 41, 45 (App.1989) (construing statutes). We therefore reject an interpretation of the rule which prohibits employees from parti......
-
Kadera v. Superior Court In and For County of Maricopa
...language; the meaning we adopt is the one that best harmonizes with the overall context of the statute. Maricopa County v. Arizona Tax Court, 162 Ariz. 64, 781 P.2d 41 (App.1989). The legislature recognized that although the cooperative is a hybrid property arrangement wherein the line betw......
-
Ellman Land Corp. v. Maricopa County
...for the benefit of the state. The taxpayer stated: Service is not an issue here. This is not a case as in Maricopa County [v. Arizona Tax Court, 162 Ariz. 64, 781 P.2d 41 (App.1989),] where the County is an intended named defendant and the issue is whether it had been properly served. Rathe......
-
§ 27.6.6 APPEALS TO THE TAX COURT.
...court statute also provides that the judge may be challenged only for cause. A.R.S. §§ 12-165, 12-409. Maricopa County v. Ariz. Tax Court, 162 Ariz. 64, 781 P.2d 41 (App. 1989)................ 27-14 Spiegel v. Bd. of Supervisors of Maricopa County, 175 Ariz. 479, 857 P.2d 1333 (Tax 1993) 27......
-
§ 7.3.6.1.2 Interpretation of Statutes.
...to give guidance as to how similar cases are to be processed. For example, in Maricopa County v. Ariz. Tax Court (Forty N. Ctr. Partners), 162 Ariz. 64, 65-66, 781 P.2d 41, 42-43 (App. 1989), the court found it important to decide the correct method of serving a notice of tax appeal taken p......
-
§ 27.5.2.2 COMMENCEMENT OF REVIEW.
...in R. Civ. P. 4(i) that a plaintiff in a civil action serve the defendant within 120 days of filing. See Maricopa Cty. v. Ariz. Tax Court, 162 Ariz. 64, 70, 781 P.2d 41, 47 (App. 1989). Accordingly, a notice of appeal that is not timely served under A.R.S. § 42-16209 will abate the appeal a......
-
§ 27.4.3 INITIATING A TAX COURT PROCEEDING.
...of appeal only upon the county attorney, when the defendant is actually the county, is insufficient. See Maricopa Cty. v. Ariz. Tax Court, 162 Ariz. 64, 68-69, 781 P.2d 41, 45-46 (App. 1989). In a property tax appeal, neither the county supervisors individually, the assessor, nor the county......