Marvin v. Fitch
| Decision Date | 27 May 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 52447.,52447. |
| Parties | Charles MARVIN; Gary Taylor; and 400 Tuscarora Road, LLC, for Themselves and on behalf of a Class of Similarly Situated Taxpayers, Appellants,v.Clay FITCH; Stephen R. Johnson; Richard Mason; and Michael Cheshire, Individual Members of the State Board of Equalization, Respondents. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Morris Peterson and Suellen Fulstone, Reno, for Appellants.
Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, Keith D. Marcher, Senior Deputy Attorney General, and Dennis L. Belcourt, Deputy Attorney General, Carson City, for Respondents.
Before the Court En Banc.1
In this appeal, we consider the application of absolute immunity to individual members of the State Board of Equalization (State Board). Absolute immunity is a broad immunity that is granted sparingly to individuals performing judicial or quasi-judicial functions. State of Nevada v. Dist. Ct. (Ducharm), 118 Nev. 609, 615-16, 55 P.3d 420, 423-24 (2002). On appeal, appellants Charles Marvin, Gary Taylor, and 400 Tuscarora Road, LLC (collectively, the Taxpayers), argue that the members of the State Board do not qualify for absolute immunity because the State Board refused to perform its duty of equalizing property valuations throughout the state pursuant to NRS 361.395.2 We disagree and conclude that the State Board is performing a quasi-judicial function when determining whether to equalize property valuations, and its members therefore have absolute immunity.
The Taxpayers own residential property located in the Incline Village and Crystal Bay areas of Washoe County, Nevada. In 2007, the Washoe County Board of Equalization (County Board) determined that the county assessor had utilized improper and unconstitutional methods of appraising real property and, consequently, the County Board reduced the value of various properties in Washoe County. Allegedly, the County Board did not adjust or equalize the assessed value of the Taxpayers' properties.
In March 2007, the Taxpayers petitioned the State Board for relief from the County Board's failure to equalize the assessed value of their properties. The State Board conducted a hearing on the matter and determined that it lacked jurisdiction because the Taxpayers had failed to first petition the County Board, as required by NRS 361.360.3 The Taxpayers subsequently filed a petition for judicial review of the State Board's decision and, within the same pleading, asserted a separate claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that their civil rights had been violated by the State Board's failure to perform its statutory duty to equalize property valuations pursuant to NRS 361.395. The § 1983 claim was also brought against Clay Fitch, Stephen Johnson, Richard Mason, and Michael Cheshire, individual members of the State Board.
The district court granted the petition for judicial review and (1) remanded the matter to the State Board and/or the County Board to determine whether the Taxpayers had complied with the provisions of NRS 361.420, (2) remanded the matter to the State Board to establish a record as to whether the Department of Taxation had complied with the requirement to ensure equalization throughout the state, and (3) ordered the State Board to comply with its duty to equalize property valuations throughout the state.
The individual members of the State Board moved to dismiss the § 1983 claim against them under NRCP 12(b)(5), arguing that they are entitled to absolute immunity. The district court granted the motion and dismissed the § 1983 claim against the individual members reasoning that “expos[ing] individual State Board [m]embers to civil rights claims based on their decision to raise values, lower values, or take no action when determining the equalization of values is inappropriate.” 4 The Taxpayers appeal this decision.
For clarity, we recognize that although the Taxpayers filed both a petition for judicial review and a § 1983 civil rights claim in the court below, this appeal is confined to the application of absolute immunity to the Taxpayers' § 1983 civil rights claim alleging that individual State Board members are liable because they refused to equalize property valuations pursuant to NRS 361.395. The Taxpayers contend that their § 1983 claim rests on the State Board's refusal to undertake its statutory duty to equalize property valuations under NRS 361.395. However, the record before the district court and this court shows that the State Board refused to equalize property valuations because the Taxpayers failed to adhere to the administrative procedures for review. Although the State Board's decision to not equalize the Taxpayers' property valuations based on administrative procedures may have been erroneous according to the district court, the State Board engaged in an equalization decision-making process and did not simply fail to equalize as the Taxpayers contend. In resolving this appeal, we must first examine when absolute immunity is applicable and then analyze whether the State Board's process of equalizing property valuations is a quasi-judicial function subject to such immunity. Finally, we address the policy considerations supporting our conclusion that the equalization process is quasi-judicial and the State Board members are afforded absolute immunity.
Standard of review
This court rigorously reviews a district court order granting a motion to dismiss pursuant to NRCP 12(b)(5). Sanchez v. Wal-Mart Stores, 125 Nev. ----, ----, 221 P.3d 1276, 1280 (2009). And we will accept the factual allegations of the pleading as true while construing those facts in favor of the nonmoving party. Id. Whether absolute immunity is an appropriate defense for the members of the State Board is a question of law. Duff v. Lewis, 114 Nev. 564, 568, 958 P.2d 82, 85 (1998). We review questions of law de novo. Citizens for Cold Springs v. City of Reno, 125 Nev. ----, ----, 218 P.3d 847, 850 (2009).
Judicial record
The record before the district court and this court indicates that the Taxpayers brought an appeal before the State Board complaining that the County Board failed to perform its duty of equalizing property valuations. However, the State Board declined to undertake any equalization process because the Taxpayers had neglected to file a petition for review with the County Board and, therefore, failed to adhere to the administrative procedures for equalization relief. As such, the State Board determined that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the Taxpayers' appeal or to proceed with the equalization process. While the Taxpayers claim the § 1983 action is based upon the State Board's refusal to equalize, nothing in the record supports that conclusion. See Carson Ready Mix v. First Nat'l Bk., 97 Nev. 474, 476, 635 P.2d 276, 277 (1981) (); Cuzze v. Univ. & Cmty. Coll. Sys. of Nev., 123 Nev. 598, 603, 172 P.3d 131, 135 (2007) ().
In its written decision, the State Board stated that it “found no record that the Taxpayer[s] requested the County Board for equalization relief or that the County Board took action to grant or deny equalization relief to the subject property as required by NRS 361.360(1).” Accordingly, the State Board concluded that, “[b]ased on the lack of a record made to or by the County Board with regard to request for relief, or that the County Board took action to grant or deny relief, the State Board did not accept jurisdiction to determine this matter.” Even though the district court found that the State Board's decision to not equalize the Taxpayers' property valuations was incorrect, it was nevertheless a decision regarding the equalization process. Therefore, we must determine whether that decision and the equalization process in general are afforded absolute immunity.
Absolute immunity
On appeal, the Taxpayers challenge whether the individual members of the State Board are entitled to absolute immunity. Immunity “ ‘is a matter of public policy that balances the social utility of the immunity against the social loss of being unable to attack the immune defendant.’ ” Ducharm, 118 Nev. at 614-15, 55 P.3d at 423 (quoting James L. Knoll Protecting Participants in the Mediation Process: The Role of Privilege and Immunity, 34 Tort & Ins. L.J. 115, 122 (1998)). Absolute immunity protects judicial officers from collateral attack and recognizes that appellate procedures are the appropriate method of correcting judicial error. Id. at 615, 55 P.3d at 424.
Generally, qualified immunity,5 rather than absolute immunity, is sufficient to protect nonjudicial officers in the performance of their duties id. at 617, 55 P.3d at 425 (quoting Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 486-87, 111 S.Ct. 1934, 114 L.Ed.2d 547 (1991)); however, in Butz v. Economou, the United States Supreme Court extended the application of absolute immunity to include various nonjudicial officers who participate in the judicial process. 438 U.S. 478, 513, 98 S.Ct. 2894, 57 L.Ed.2d 895 (1978) (). Following Butz, courts have applied absolute immunity to individuals who perform quasi-judicial functions. Mishler v. Clift, 191 F.3d 998, 1007 (9th Cir.1999) (); Ducharm, 118 Nev. at 617, 55 P.3d at 425; Duff, 114 Nev. at 571, 958 P.2d at 87 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Morrow, 53436.
...more importantly (3) whether its power affects the personal or property rights of private persons.”). FN8. See, e.g., Marvin v. Fitch, 126 Nev. ––––, 232 P.3d 425 (2010) (determining that the State Board of Equalization performed quasi-judicial functions and thus was entitled to immunity); ......
-
State vs. Morrow
...(3) whether its power affects the personal or property rights of private persons.”). 8. See, e.g., Marvin v. Fitch, 126 Nev. ___, 232 P.3d 425 (2010) (determining that the State Board of Equalization performed quasi-judicial functions and thus was entitled to immunity); Witherow, 123 Nev. a......
- Bank of Am., N.A. v. Yorkshire Manor I Homeowners Ass'n
-
In re Peterson
...answer has been filed and a default judgment is entered, the issue involved has not been actually and necessarily litigated. Sandoval, 232 P.3d at 425. It is also important to note that in Nevada issue preclusion does not apply to matters that simply could have been litigated, but were not.......