Miller, Matter of
| Decision Date | 16 September 1975 |
| Docket Number | 1739 and 1767,Nos. 1715,1725,s. 1715 |
| Citation | 542 P.2d 1182,88 N.M. 492,1975 NMCA 116 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the Protest of Ira B. MILLER to the 1974 Valuation of the Real Property in Lincoln County, New Mexico. ERNEST W. HAHN, INC., a corporation, Protestant-Appellant, v. COUNTY ASSESSOR FOR BERNALILLO COUNTY, New Mexico, Respondent-Appellee. CARLO, INC., Petitioner-Appellant, v. COUNTY ASSESSOR FOR BERNALILLO COUNTY, New Mexico, Respondent-Appellee. DALE BELLAMAH LAND CO., INC., Protestant-Appellant, v. COUNTY ASSESSOR FOR BERNALILLO COUNTY, New Mexico, Respondent-Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of New Mexico |
Four property owners-taxpayers appeal from an Order and Decision of the county valuation protests board located in the county in which each taxpayer's land is situated. These counties are Lincoln and Bernalillo. Because they present the same or related questions, we have consolidated these cases for review.
Each board denied the taxpayer's protest of the valuation of his land by the county assessor.
We reverse the decisions of the county valuation protests boards.
1) Ira B. Miller owns land in Ruidoso Downs, Lincoln County.
2) Ernest W. Hahn, Inc., Dale Bellamah Land Co., Inc. and Carlo, Inc. each own land in Bernalillo County.
In 1973 the Legislature enacted the 'New Mexico Property Tax Code'. Section 72--28--1 et seq. Special 1973 Supplement. This code and the regulations promulgated by the Director of the Property Appraisal Department were declared effective January 1, 1975, and are not applicable to the cases before us. Property Tax Department Regulation 31--27:2 provides for County Protests Board procedures. However, prior to the effective date of the Property Tax Code, no such procedures were provided for.
In 1970 the Legislature enacted the 'Property Appraisal Department Act'. Sections 72--25--1 et seq., N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 10, pt. 2, Special 1974 Supp.). Section 72--25--6 provides:
A. Unless a specific method for appraising property is provided by law, the department shall adopt regulations for appraising each kind of property in the state. Such regulations shall contain findings of fact upon which the method of appraisal is based and a detailed description of the method of appraisal of such property. (Emphasis added).
H. All existing orders, rulings and regulations which have been filed with the state records center, and existing procedures of the state tax commission shall be continued in full force and effect until revoked, superseded or amended by the department; . . ..
The New Mexico Property Appraisal Department issued to each New Mexico county assessors, a Land Manual for determining 'Methods of Land Valuation'. We have reviewed this manual and find nothing therein which constitutes compliance with subdivision (A) of § 72--25--6.
Under the Property Appraisal Department Act, the Supreme Court held that:
The county taxing authorities have no statutory authority or right to assess taxable tangible property contrary to the directions, rules, regulations and orders of the P.A.D., as the functions of the local taxing authorities are purely ministerial. (Emphasis added). New Mexico Prop. App. Dept. v. Board of County Com'rs, 82 N.M. 267, 269, 479 P.2d 771, 773 (1971).
In 1973, the Legislature created a property appraisal department director, § 72--6--12, N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 10, pt. 2, 1973 Supp.). Under this enactment the director has authority to issue regulations, rulings, orders and instructions to county assessors to assure compliance with the laws of property taxation. The director 'may promulgate all necessary rules and regulations, including standards of assessment, which rules and regulations shall be followed by the county assessors in connection with the assessment and valuation of property for tax purposes.' Section 72--6--12.1.
We have reviewed all of the regulations submitted by the Property Appraisal Department to this Court pursuant to the instant appeals. We find none which provides a method to govern the valuation and assessment of the taxpayers' property. We find none which provides a specific method for appraising horse race tracks or shopping centers or that contains 'findings of fact . . . and a detailed description of the method of appraisal . . ..' (Section 72--25--6(A)). We find none issued by the Director of the Property Appraisal Department.
Neither Chapter 72, Revenue and Taxation, § 72--2--1 et seq., nor the regulations of the Property Appraisal Department provide for rules of practice before the county valuation protests boards. There is no provision for findings of fact and conclusions of law by the boards, nor any provision for discovery of evidence by the taxpayer.
The only applicable statutory provision is § 72--2--39.1(A) which provides that:
The technical Rules of Evidence and the Rules of Civil Procedure (§ 21--1--1(1) et seq.) do not apply at protest hearings before a county valuation protests board.
In the instant cases, hearings were held by the Lincoln and Bernalillo County Valuation Protests Boards regarding appellants' protests. In each case, the board excluded evidence proffered by the taxpayer. In the case of appellant Miller, the Lincoln County Board denied Miller the right to discovery of evidence regarding the method of valuation of his property.
In each of the cases that are part of this appeal, the county valuation protests board entered an order 'that no change be made in the valuation records of the county assessor . . ..'
The taxpayers appealed to this Court pursuant to § 72--2--39.2.
In each case, the county assessor appraised the value of the taxpayer's property. The method by which a valuation was assessed on each taxpayer's property is unknown.
(1) Denial of Discovery by Deposition
Miller, prior to his hearing before the Lincoln County Valuation Protests Board, attempted to take depositions of the county appraiser and a member of the State Reappraisal Department to learn the basis upon which the contested assessment was made. He was denied the right to take depositions by the Board because, it claimed, the law does not provide for this method of discovery on appeal, the Board cites the statement in § 72--2--39.1(A) that the 'Rules of Civil Procedure . . . do not apply . . .' as authority for this ruling. We disagree.
Protestants appearing before administrative boards have a right to discovery similar in scope to that granted by Rules 26 to 37 of the Rules of Civil Procedure (§§ 21--1--1(26) to 21--1--1(37), N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 4, 1970)). See Equal Employ. Op. Com'n v. Los Alamos Constructors, Inc., 382 F.Supp. 1373 (D.N.M.1974). The right to discovery in administrative proceedings is based on the rule that wide latitude in admission of evidence shall govern these proceedings. The reason for making the Rules of Evidence and Rules of Civil Procedure inapplicable to hearings before county valuation protestsboards is not to restrict the discovery and presentation of evidence, but to facilitate it. In recent years, the courts have unwaveringly recognized the right to discovery possessed by citizen-participants in administrative proceedings. See, the excelcellent opinion of Judge Winner, tracing the development of the law on this question, in Equal Employ. Op. Com'n., supra.
On July 2, 1973, the county assessor approved a valuation on Miller's land of $43,911. On August 6, 1973, a so-called revised schedule raised the valuation to $272,884. On March 4, 1974, the valuation was increased to $474,083, approximately ten times the valuation approved a year before. Miller had the right to discover by deposition the reasons for the dramatic increase in the valuations of his properties.
Section 4--32--15, N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 2, pt. 1, 1974) of the 'Administative Procedures Act' allows the administrative agency and any party to take depositions at an administrative hearing. This Act does not govern hearings before county valuation protests boards, because such hearings have not been placed under the Act by law. Mayer v. Public Employees Retirement Board, 81 N.M. 64, 463 P.2d 40 (Ct.App.1970); Westland Corporation v. Commissioner of Revenue, 83 N.M. 29, 487 P.2d 1099 (Ct.App.1971). It has been suggested that the Legislature has a duty to make the Act applicable to all public agencies to protect the public. Pharmaceutical Mfrs. Ass'n v. New Mexico Bd. of Ph., 86 N.M. 571, 525 P.2d 931 (Ct.App.1974) (Sutin, J., dissenting).
In any case, the Act demonstrates that depositions are permissible under administrative law, to assist the agency and other parties in obtaining a fair hearing.
Depositions are available in, (1) Corporation Commission hearings (§ 69--7--7, N.M.S.A.1953 (2d Repl.Vol. 10, pt. 1, 1974)), (2) Public Service Commission hearings (§ 68--8--10, N.M.S.A.1953 (2d Repl.Vol. 10, pt. 1, 1974)), (3) Arbitration hearings (§ 22--3--15, N.M.S.A.1953 (Vol. 5, 1973 Supp.)), and (4) State Engineering administrative...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
National Council on Compensation Ins. v. New Mexico State Corp. Com'n
... ... Therefore, the Court properly ruled that, as required by due process, the order did not constitute a reasonably definite notice of the subject matter attributed to it by the Commission. Id. at 340, 563 P.2d at 603 ... In contrast to the order in Mountain States, NCCI was given ... Matter of Protest of Miller, 88 N.M. 492, 496, 542 P.2d 1182, 1186 (Ct.App.1975), reh'g denied, cert. denied, 89 N.M. 5, 546 P.2d 70 (1975) ... After ... ...
-
Schmitz v. Smentowski
...that the ruling was fair. We are at a loss to understand how much more process the Bank feels it is due. See In re Miller, 88 N.M. 492, 497-98, 542 P.2d 1182, 1187-88 (Ct.App.1975), rev'd on other grounds, 89 N.M. 547, 555 P.2d 142 II. THE BANK PROPERLY PRESERVED ITS RIGHT TO APPEAL. The Mo......
-
Residences v. Martinez
...39-1-1.1[ ] is not a fact-determining body."); Hahn v. Cty. Assessor for Bernalillo Cty. (In re Miller) , 1975-NMCA-116, ¶ 52, 88 N.M. 492, 542 P.2d 1182 ("If there is substantial evidence in the record to support a decision of a county valuation protests board, [an appellate court is] boun......
-
Board of Educ. of Alamogordo Public Schools Dist. No. 1 v. Jennings
... ... protestations of innocence, but, upon our reading of the record, we believe that the State Board accepted that an affair took place and, as a matter of policy, declined to fire Jennings for having this affair. It is within the province of the State Board to decide that a private affair between ... This court held in Matter of Protest of Miller, 88 N.M. 492, 542 P.2d 1182 (Ct.App.1975), "When the administrative board has reached a decision and promulgated an order without considering all the ... ...