Morgan Hotel Corp., In re
| Decision Date | 13 December 1966 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 12612,12613,s. 12612 |
| Citation | 151 W.Va. 357,151 S.E.2d 676 |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | In re Tax Assessment of Real Estate of MORGAN HOTEL CORPORATION. In re Tax Assessment of Real Estate of MORGANTOWN ORDNANCE WORKS, INC. |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Where an appeal has been granted to a circuit court, upon the application of a property owner, pursuant to Code, 1931, 11-3-25, as amended, from an assessment of his property made by the county court pursuant to Code, 1931, 11-3-24, as amended, no valid objection can be made to the property owner's right to have the matter reviewed in the circuit court on the ground that the record contains no evidence offered on the question of valuation if it appears that the county court denied the property owner's timely demand for a hearing with the right to submit evidence.
2. By virtue of the provisions of Code, 1931, 11-3-24, as amended, a county court is required annually, not later than the first day of February, to meet for the purpose of reviewing and equalizing the assessment made by the assessor 'and shall not remain in session for a longer period than twenty-eight days.' The language quoted is clear and unambiguous and, by virtue thereof, the county court, after expiration of the statutory period and after having adjourned Sine die, has no power to reconvene for the purpose of reviewing and equalizing assessments.
3. Under the provisions of Code, 1931, 11-3-25, as amended, which provides for review by the circuit court of assessment of property made by the county court for tax purposes, the circuit court has no power to hear the matter de novo, if there has been actual notice to the landowner and an appearance by him or on his behalf before the county court in relation to the assessment of which he complains, but in such case the circuit court must review and hear the matter only on the record upon which the county court's action was based.
4. In the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, this Court will not decide nonjurisdictional questions which were not considered and decided by the court from which the appeal has been taken.
Farmer & Farmer, George R. Farmer, George R. Farmer, Jr., Morgantown, for plaintiffs in error.
Kenneth E. Kincaid, Morgantown, for defendant in error.
These cases, on appeal from the Circuit Court of Monongalia County, involve proceedings by which Morgan Hotel Corporation and Morgantown Ordnance Works, Inc., respectively, seek to require reductions in tax assessment valuations placed upon their real estate by the County Court of Monongalia County, meeting, pursuant to Code, 1931, 11-3-24, as amended, for the purpose of reviewing and equalizing the assessment made by the assessor, for the 1966 tax year. Inasmuch as the facts and issues in the two cases are similar, they have been combined in this Court for purposes of oral argument and decision.
Morgan Hotel Corporation and Morgantown Ordnance Works, Inc., will be referred to from time to time in this opinion merely as landowners or as taxpayers. In all matters material to these cases, the county court acted for the purpose of reviewing and equalizing the assessment made by the assessor, but, in the interest of brevity and convenience, it will be referred to sometimes hereafter in this opinion merely as the county court.
The county court gave to each of the two taxpayers notice of its purpose to raise the valuation of its real estate for tax purposes, in a specified amount, which was in excess of the valuation placed thereon by the county assessor. Each taxpayer thereafter filed with the county court a complaint, duly verified, by which the taxpayer stated at length reasons, facts and figures to support its contention that the valuation placed upon its real estate by the county court was excessive. The complaint in each case stated that, unless the valuation was reduced in accordance with the request made in the complaint, the property owner demanded a hearing at which testimony or evidence 'may be taken and reported' as provided in Code, 1931, 11-3-25, as amended, 'so that an appeal may be taken from any adverse finding by your Court.'
The county court, by order entered February 25, 1966, noted the filing of the two complaints. An order entered on February 28, 1966, stated: No hearings were granted pursuant to the demands of the two property owners, and consequently no testimony was taken in relation to the two assessments.
By orders entered on March 28, 1966, the Circuit Court of Monongalia County granted an 'appeal' upon the application of the taxpayer in each case. Parenthetically we note that the designation might more appropriately be writ of error rather than appeal. In the circuit court, the Prosecuting Attorney of Monongalia County appeared in behalf of Monongalia County and the State of West Virginia, which, for the sake of convenience, may be hereafter referred to in this opinion as defendants. The order in each case recites that the application for appeal was accompanied by a duly certified copy of the record or proceedings before the county court, and that the application was in proper form and presented within thirty days after the county court adjourned in its capacity as a body to review and equalize the assessment. The order in each case further recites that the case was set for hearing and submission on April 7, 1966.
On April 7, 1966, the prosecuting attorney, appearing again in behalf of the defendants, filed in each case a motion in writing to dismiss the 'Application for Appeal.' Generally speaking, the motion was based on a contention that, since no hearing was held and no testimony was taken before the county court, there was no record before the circuit court upon which it could decide the case. Each case was submitted for decision by the circuit court on April 7, 1966. An order entered in each case on June 27, 1966, embodies the circuit court's judgment from which a writ of error has been granted in each case by this Court. A portion of the orders entered is as follows:
'The Court after consideration of the record in this proceeding does find that the Petitioner in writing did on February 25, 1966, contest the adjusted valuation of said real estate as fixed by the County Court of Monongalia County, West Virginia, and by the same writing did demand a hearing at a time to be fixed so that testimony could be taken and reported in such manner as to be available for consideration upon appeal to this Court; that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Western Auto Supply Co. v. Dillard
...Court will not consider on appeal nonjurisdictional questions which have not been acted upon by the trial court. In Re: Morgan Hotel Corporation, 151 W.Va. 357, 151 S.E.2d 676; Korzun v. Shahan, 151 W.Va. 243, 151 S.E.2d 287; Work v. Rogerson, 149 W.Va. 493, 142 S.E.2d 188; Pettry v. The Ch......
-
Bowers v. Wurzburg
...S.E.2d 692 (1971) (same); Syl. pt. 1, Mowery v. Hitt, 155 W.Va. 103, 181 S.E.2d 334 (1971) (same); Syl. pt. 4, In re Morgan Hotel Corp., 151 W.Va. 357, 151 S.E.2d 676 (1966) (same); Syl. pt. 10, in part, Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Federal Ins. Co. of New York, 148 W.Va. 160, 133 S.E.2d 770 (1......
-
Tax Assessments Against Pocahontas Land Co., In re
...that is available to hold hearings on taxpayers' protests. These conclusions are consistent with our ruling in In re Morgan Hotel Corporation, 151 W.Va. 357, 151 S.E.2d 676 (1966), where we held that once the Board had completed its statutory session of twenty-eight days and adjourned sine ......
-
Pickens v. Kinder
...v. Hix, 137 W.Va. 148, 70 S.E.2d 589; Pettry v. C. & O. R.R. Co., 148 W.Va. 443, 135 S.E.2d 729; Tax Assessment of Real Estate of Morgan Hotel Corporation, 151 W.Va. 357, 151 S.E.2d 676; Mowery v. Hitt, et al., W.Va., 181 S.E.2d 334 (decided by this Court May 25, 1971). This principle is cl......