Morrison v. Rutherford, 42888
| Decision Date | 13 December 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 42888,42888 |
| Citation | 516 P.2d 1036,83 Wn.2d 153 |
| Parties | E. Albert MORRISON and Virginia J. Morrison, husband and wife, Appellants, v. F. C. RUTHERFORD, Kitsap County Assessor, and Maxine Johnson, Kitsap County Treasurer, Respondents. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
E. Albert Morrison, pro se.
John C. Merkel, Pros. Atty., Port Orchard, for respondents.
This case represents still another chapter in the battle by taxpayers whose real-estate taxes have been increased substantially as a result of the cyclical revaluation programs of the county assessors.
Plaintiffs' unimproved Kitsap County property was included in the first phase of a systematic plan of revaluation. In their attack upon the revaluation and resulting increased taxes, plaintiffs rely principally upon the fact that identical land of equal market value immediately adjacent to plaintiffs' land, but not included in the first phase, was apprised by the assessor at one half of the value placed on plaintiffs' property. Therefore, plaintiffs' taxes were twice those imposed on identical land of equal value.
Plaintiffs contend that the imposition of such grossly disparate taxes by defendants, the assessor and treasurer of Kitsap County, denies plaintiffs the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution and further violates Const. art 7, § 1 (amendment 14) that 'All taxes shall be uniform upon the same class of property . . .'
The trial court found that the Kitsap County assessor has recently achieved a 4-year cyclical program of revaluation and will be able to maintain such 4-year cycle if aided by state funds. The staff and budget of the assessor are inadequate to allow an annual review of the entire county. The valuations obtained are posted currently as opposed to holding them back until a county-wide revaluation can be achieved. Thus, the revaluations for the first quarter of the property revalued by the assessor in the first year of the program were immediately placed on the tax rolls. This first quarter included the plaintiffs' land.
The trial court further found a marked inequality between the valuation for tax purposes established for plaintiffs' property and the valuation for tax purposes of the property in an adjoining section. However, the court found this to be due not to arbitrary, capricious or intentional discrimination by any Kitsap County official, but rather due to a lack of adequate funds to engage a staff sufficient to reappraise the entire county in any one year. The trial court finally found that the revaluation program of the Kitsap County assessor is being conducted orderly and pursuant to a regular plan.
Concluding that the assessor's program is compatible with Const. art. 7, § 1 and the equal protection clause, the trial court denied plaintiffs' claim for refund of the taxes paid under protest. We affirm.
Plaintiffs recognize that in Carkonen v. Williams, 76 Wash.2d 617, 458 P.2d 280 (1969), we put the stamp of constitutional approval upon the 4-year cyclical program being undertaken by the assessors in cooperation with the Department of Revenue and financed in part by the legislature. In Carkonen it was noted that disparate underassessing, inequities, and imbalances in the property tax structure were due at least in part to the volume of work of the assessors and to limited staffs and budgets. The court concluded that a systematic, nondiscriminatory cyclical revaluation program is valid and in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Belas v. Kiga
...and budgetary allocations, allows the cyclical approach. Carkonen, 76 Wash.2d at 632, 458 P.2d 280. See also Morrison v. Rutherford, 83 Wash.2d 153, 154-55, 516 P.2d 1036 (1973). In Dore v. Kinnear, 79 Wash.2d 755, 763, 489 P.2d 898 (1971), we reaffirmed the importance of the uniformity pro......
-
Nash v. Assessor of Town of Southampton, 1
...there was a finding of an invidious discrimination by the taxing jurisdiction against new property owners) (see, Morrison v. Rutherford, 83 Wash.2d 153, 516 P.2d 1036). Indeed, it cannot be said, on the present record, that the Town acted in bad faith in this case or that the plaintiffs wer......
-
Justus v. Board of Equalization of Kootenai County, 77-A-641
...535 P.2d 1302 (1975); Patterson v. State Dept. of Revenue, supra; Ernest W. Hahn, Inc. v. County Assessor, supra; Morrison v. Rutherford, 83 Wash.2d 153, 516 P.2d 1036 (1973). Tested against the considerations set forth above, the Kootenai County revaluation plan did not violate the uniform......
-
Sator v. State Dept. of Revenue
...898 (1971); Snohomish County Bd. of Equalization v. Department of Revenue, 80 Wash.2d 262, 493 P.2d 1012 (1972); Morrison v. Rutherford, 83 Wash.2d 153, 516 P.2d 1036 (1973); and Valentine v. Johnston, 83 Wash.2d 390, 518 P.2d 700 (1974). The instant case, however, represents a decisive bre......