Moderate Income Housing, Inc. v. Board of Review of Pottawattamie County, 85-1700
| Decision Date | 17 September 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-1700,85-1700 |
| Parties | MODERATE INCOME HOUSING, INC., Appellant, v. BOARD OF REVIEW OF POTTAWATTAMIE COUNTY, Iowa, Appellee. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Michael G. Reilly of Perkins, Sacks, Hannan & Reilly, Council Bluffs, for appellant.
Frank W. Pechacek, Jr., and Randy R. Ewing of Smith, Peterson, Beckman & Willson, Council Bluffs, for appellee.
Considered by REYNOLDSON, C.J., and McGIVERIN, LARSON, SCHULTZ and WOLLE, JJ.
In this appeal a taxpayer, a corporate property owner, commenced an equity action against a county board of review requesting the district court to order the board to reconvene and act on the taxpayer's protest to its tax assessment. Taxpayer's petition did not specifically allege it sought an order of mandamus; however, counsel in appellate argument stated that mandamus was the relief sought. The district court sustained a special appearance holding that it did not have original jurisdiction on an assessment case and that an appeal pursuant to Iowa Code section 441.38 1 was the sole statutory remedy available to the aggrieved taxpayer. The taxpayer maintains the board took no action on its protest; thus the court had no jurisdiction over the case by way or appeal. Consequently, the taxpayer claims it had a right to bring this action.
The disposition of this action was reached without an evidentiary hearing; therefore, we look to the pleadings for the alleged facts. Moderate Income Housing, Inc., a Missouri corporation, is the titleholder of the property in question and is the aggrieved taxpayer. On May 1, 1985, Charles A. Brents, of Lee's Summit, Missouri, who the taxpayer alleges is its vice-president and duly authorized agent, filed a protest with the Board of Review of Pottawattamie County concerning the 1985 assessment against the real estate in the sum of $1,800,000. Allegedly, on May 20 Brents, acting on behalf of the taxpayer, appeared before the board and an evidentiary hearing was held. On May 21 the board notified Brents that the protest "was reviewed by the board." The notice stated:
The board hereby informs you that your protest is not valid. Your 1985 assessment is hereby certified to be $1,800,000. The reason for the board's action is: protest not filed or made by a property owner or aggrieved taxpayer of this county, therefore petition is not valid and board has no jurisdiction.
The taxpayer responded to the notice by filing this equity action. Taxpayer alleged it had no right to appeal because the board failed to take jurisdiction of its protest, and sought a court decree ordering the board to reconvene and act on its protest.
The taxpayer's action was disposed of without further pleading or evidence. The board filed a special appearance maintaining that the court did not have jurisdiction to review a tax assessment when the board did not have jurisdiction. The district court sustained the special appearance noting that it had jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject matter involved; however, it determined that an appeal pursuant to section 441.38 provided the sole statutory means of approaching this problem. The gist of the ruling was that the district court lacked authority over assessment cases, absent an appeal. The effect of the ruling was a dismissal of the action for failure to state a claim on which any relief can be granted. See Iowa R.Civ.P. 104(b). Consequently, we shall treat the ruling as a dismissal.
We agree with the district court that mandamus is not the appropriate action under these facts. Mandamus is statutorily defined as follows:
The action of mandamus is one brought to obtain an order commanding an inferior tribunal, board, corporation, or person to do or not to do an act, the performance or omission of which the law enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station.
Iowa Code § 661.1. Mandamus will not lie if there is another remedy at law. Iowa Code § 661.7 (). See also Hewitt v. Ryan, 356 N.W.2d 230, 233 (Iowa 1984) (); Stafford v. Valley Community School District, 298 N.W.2d 307, 309 (Iowa 1980) ().
The taxpayer urges that it could not have appealed because the board took no action. It points out that the board of review has statutory power to equalize assessment by raising or lowering the individual assessments of real property under Iowa Code section 441.35; however, it maintains that the board "did not exercise any of its statutory powers" and simply took no action on the protest. It urges that the board did not act on the protest because it decided it had no jurisdiction of the protest. The board does not concede that it had jurisdiction to grant relief on the protest; however, it claims the taxpayer's remedy with reference to the protest was to appeal to the district court.
An administrative agency has the authority and duty to determine its own limits of statutory authority, although it is the function of the judiciary to finally decide the limits of the authority of the agency. See 2 Am.Jur.2d Admin. Law §§ 332, 491, 691 (1962); 73 C.J.S. Public Admin. Law and Procedures §§ 64, 241 (1983).
Once the agency has determined its jurisdiction or otherwise acted, its authority to act is subject to judicial scrutiny either by appeal or by a certiorari action. Anstey v. Iowa State Commerce Commission, 292 N.W.2d 380, 384 (Iowa 1980) (); Laughlin v. Franc, 247 Iowa 345, 351, 73 N.W.2d 750, 753-54 (1955) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allen v. Dall. Cnty. Bd. of Review
...authority, it is the function of the judiciary to finally determine the limits of that authority. See Moderate Income Hous., Inc. v. Bd. of Review, 393 N.W.2d 324, 326 (Iowa 1986). Once the Board has “determined its jurisdiction or otherwise acted,” its authority to act is subject to review......
-
Basik Five Trust v. Culver, No. 6-919/06-0165 (Iowa App. 1/18/2007)
...and subject to judicial scrutiny the actions either by appeal or by a certiorari action. Moderate Income Housing, Inc. v. Bd. of Review of Pottawattamie County, 393 N.W.2d 324, 326 (Iowa 1986). We recognize the plaintiffs' argument that business trusts are legitimate business entities, vali......
-
Berent v. City of Iowa, No. 3-719/02-1451 (Iowa App. 11/26/2003), 3-719/02-1451
...no clear duty to submit the proposed amendments to the electorate and mandamus was inappropriate. See Moderate Income Hous., Inc. v. Board of Review, 393 N.W.2d 324, 326-27 (Iowa 1986) (holding that where it was unclear whether board acted illegally, mandamus was not proper and certiorari w......