Murray v. Richardson
| Decision Date | 29 April 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,Nos. 50291-50293,s. 50291-50293,2 |
| Parties | Guy MURRAY et al., Tax Assessors v. H. C. RICHARDSON. Guy MURRAY et al., Tax Assessors v. R. H. THOMPSON. Guy MURRAY et al., Tax Assessors v. Othella HUDSON |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Murphey Rogers, Ocilla, for appellants.
Walters & Davis, J. Harvey Davis, Ocilla, for appellees.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
The three cases above named have substantially the same set of facts, and questions of law are the same, or similar. When an enumeration of error applies only to facts of one case it will be so shown by the writer.
The appellees, taxpayers of Irwin County, made their return to tax authorities as to the value of real estate owned by them. The tax assessors raised this evaluation considerably. The taxpayers appealed the assessors' decision to the Board of Tax Equalizers of Irwin County. The Equalization Board found a value of the properties lower than that found by the Board of Tax Assessors. The County Board of Tax Assessors appealed these decisions to the superior court. By agreement of counsel, the finding and proceedings of both boards was submitted to the jury. The judge informed the parties that same was not admissible over objection, but they stipulated its admission and it went to the jury. The value for which taxpayers returned their property was also before the jury. The parties testified at length as to the value of their property as to classes of certain property.
The jury in each case found below the assessors' valuation but not below the valuation of tax equalizer's or parties.
The Board of Tax Assessors appealed the judgment of the superior court to this court. Held:
1. The motion dismiss is denied. See, Tiller v. State, 224 Ga. 645, 164 S.E.2d 137.
2. The jury had before it, by agreement of counsel, the findings and proceedings of Tax Assessors and Tax Equalization Boards, and the value placed upon property by owners and evidence from parties as to value of real estate. Also, much evidence as to value of certain types of land contained within the various properties.
The verdict of the jury was within the range of testimony as to value. Thus, there was evidence to authorize the verdict and it is supported. Derrick v. Rabun County, 107 Ga.App. 229, 129 S.E.2d 583. The objections on the general grounds are held not meritorious.
3. In the Richardson case (No. 50291) no proper foundation was laid for the admission of warranty deeds as to other sales of land in the county. The judge did not err in excluding these deeds.
4. The ground that one of the Board of Tax Equalizers was disqualified because of relationship to the defendant in the Hudson case came too late when made at the jury trial. Section (8)(A), (B) of the Act of 1972 (Ga.L.1972, pp. 1094, 1100; Code Ann. § 92-6912(8)(A), (B)) sets the method for objection on this ground. The trial before jury is a de novo investigation, Section 6(C) of the above Act (Ga.L.1972, pp. 1094, 1099; Code Ann. § 92-6912(6)(C)) and errors in the hearing before the tax equalizers would be waived if not objected to at the equalizers' hearing. What transpired at the hearing would not be admissible if objected to in the de novo investigation at trial before jury.
5. The court did not err in failing to give in charge all of the Act of 1972 (Ga.L.1972, pp. 1094, 1101) as amended (Code Ann. § 92-6912) as many provisions of this Section were not pertinent to the issues in this case. The failure to charge upon request that portion of the above Section 5(A) of the Act of 1972 and Section 6(A) of the Act of 1972 as re-written by the Act of 1973 (Ga.L.1973, pp. 709, 710; Code Ann. § 92-6912(5)(A) and (6)(A)) was not error as the question of who appealed this case to the superior court and for what reason, was not an issue in this case for jury decision. Whether an appeal is properly before the court is a question of law for the court.
6. The court charged that portion of Code Section 92-6911 relating to fair valuation and equalization, and Code Section 92-2702...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vazquez v. State
...so.Although the trial court stated, "[t]hat's fair[,]" we are not bound by the trial court's statement. Cf. Murray v. Richardson , 134 Ga. App. 676, 678 (5), 215 S.E.2d 715 (1975) ("Whether an appeal is properly before the court is a question of law for the ...
-
Stoddard v. Grady County Bd. of Tax Assessors, s. 77469
...either excessive or contrary to the evidence. The verdict reached was within the range of the evidence presented. Murray v. Richardson, 134 Ga.App. 676, 677, 215 S.E.2d 715. Additionally, while the appellant contends that the verdict and judgment were contrary to the law and cites for our a......
-
Hooten v. Thomas
...of the BOE, BOE members may be challenged on their qualifications in the statutory appeals process. See Murray v. Richardson, 134 Ga.App. 676, 677-678(4), 215 S.E.2d 715 (1975) (challenge to qualifications of BOE member too late at jury trial; should have been challenged in statutory appeal......
-
Hall County Bd. of Tax Assessors v. Reed, s. 54028-54030
...by such an appeal, Code Ann. § 92-6912(6)(D)(1) requires a de novo investigation by trial before a jury. See Murray v. Richardson, 134 Ga.App. 676, 677(4), 215 S.E.2d 715 (1975). The just and fair valuation of the property involved is a question of fact for jury Second, under the CPA a case......