Nayeri v. Mohave Cnty.

• Citation: 247 Ariz. 490,452 P.3d 720
• Decision Date: 14 November 2019
• Docket Number: No. 1 CA-TX 18-0009,1 CA-TX 18-0009
• Parties: Majid NAYERI, et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. MOHAVE COUNTY, et al., Defendants/Appellees.
• Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona

247 Ariz. 490
452 P.3d 720

Majid NAYERI, et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants,
v.
MOHAVE COUNTY, et al., Defendants/Appellees.

No. 1 CA-TX 18-0009

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 1.

FILED November 14, 2019

Brentwood Law Group PLLC, Tempe, By Stephen Brower, Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants

Al Arpad Esq., Phoenix, By Alexander R. Arpad, Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants

Mohave County Attorney's Office, Kingman, By Lenore Knudtson, Counsel for Defendants/Appellees

Judge James B. Morse Jr. delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Kenton D. Jones and Judge Diane M. Johnsen joined.

MORSE, Judge:

¶1 In this opinion, we hold that A.R.S. § 42-11004 does not require a property owner to pay delinquent taxes before suing in tax court to challenge the sale of a property tax lien under A.R.S. § 42-18105. Accordingly, we vacate and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 In 2010, Majid Nayeri and Bita Abidian ("Taxpayers") purchased real property in Mohave County (the "County") identified by parcel number 216-06-155 (the "Property"). Since that time, they have paid the property taxes as they have come due.

¶3 The Property is located in an area known as the "Disputed Triangle," a triangular-shaped piece of land east of the Colorado River near the Fort Mojave Indian Reservation. See United States v. Aria , CV 9401624-PCT-PGR, 2009 WL 331356, at *1 (D. Ariz. Feb. 11, 2009), appeal dismissed , No. 09-15714, 2010 WL 3010298 (9th Cir. March 3, 2010) (hereinafter, " Aria "). In 1994, long before Taxpayers purchased the Property, the federal government filed the Aria lawsuit to determine whether the Disputed Triangle should be held in trust for the Fort Mojave Indian Tribe (the "Tribe"). See id. In 2009, the District Court ruled in Aria that the federal government, on behalf of the Tribe,

452 P.3d 723

had no claim to the Disputed Triangle. See id. at *10.

¶4 During the 15 years the Aria case was pending, the County did not collect property taxes on the affected parcels and made no demand for payment. In 2010, after the Aria case ended, the County demanded payment of all past due taxes and told property owners that "delinquent taxes due on the parcels involved will be sold at future tax lien sales unless payment arrangements are made with the Treasurer." Taxpayers admit that some taxes accrued on the Property before 2010 and have not been paid. In 2016, the County offered to waive the interest and fees accrued through June 2010 if Taxpayers would pay the base property tax, plus interest accrued after July 2010, totaling $37,486.40. Taxpayers refused the County's offer.

¶5 The County Treasurer sent Taxpayers a Delinquent Tax Notice in January 2017 threatening to sell the tax liens on the Property if payment was not made. Taxpayers did not pay, and the County offered the tax liens for years 2003-2009 on the Property at its February 2017 tax lien sale. After the liens went unsold, they were assigned to the state.¹

¶6 Meanwhile, Taxpayers joined a lawsuit filed by other Disputed Triangle property owners seeking a declaratory judgment that the County's sales of tax liens on their properties were time-barred.² The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. After oral argument, the tax court granted summary judgment in favor of the County, concluding that A.R.S. § 42-11004 prohibited Taxpayers from challenging the sale of the liens unless and until they paid the delinquent taxes.

¶7 After an unsuccessful motion for new trial, Taxpayers appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(1) and (A)(5).

DISCUSSION

¶8 We review de novo the tax court's ruling on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment and the court's interpretation of the relevant tax statutes. SolarCity Corp. v. Ariz. Dep't of Revenue , 243 Ariz. 477, 480, ¶ 8, 413 P.3d 678, 681 (2018). We are obligated to interpret tax statutes "strictly against the state" and resolve ambiguities "in favor of the taxpayer." Wilderness World, Inc. v. Ariz. Dep't of Revenue , 182 Ariz. 196, 199, 895 P.2d 108, 111 (1995).

I. Taxpayers Were Not Required to Pay the Delinquent Taxes.

¶9 Taxpayers first argue that § 42-11004, which requires a property owner to pay a tax before filing a lawsuit to challenge the amount or validity of the tax, does not apply to their claim. Specifically, they assert that their lawsuit invokes the protection of a "statutory time limitation" applying to the sale of tax liens and does not constitute "a challenge to the validity or amount of the tax" underlying the liens. We agree.

¶10 Section 42-11004 provides, in relevant part:

A person on whom a tax has been imposed or levied under any law relating to taxation

452 P.3d 724

may not test the validity or amount of tax ... if any of the taxes:

1. Levied and assessed in previous years against the person's property have not been paid.

2. That are the subject of the action are not paid before becoming delinquent.

A.R.S. § 42-11004 (emphasis added).

¶11 Here, Taxpayers sought a declaratory judgment that the County could not sell the tax liens on the Property because the County did not advertise the sale within five...