Petition of Town of Essex

• Decision Date: 23 July 1965
• Docket Number: No. 1907,1907
• Citation: 212 A.2d 623,125 Vt. 170
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court
• Parties: PETITION OF the TOWN OF ESSEX.

Page 623

212 A.2d 623

125 Vt. 170

PETITION OF the TOWN OF ESSEX.

No. 1907.

Supreme Court of Vermont.

July 23, 1965.

Philip A. Kolvoord, Essex Junction, for petitioner.

Gravel & Bing, Burlington, for petitionees.

Before HOLDEN, C. J., and SHANGRAW, BARNEY, SMITH and KEYSER, JJ.

KEYSER, Justice.

This is a petition for a writ of certiorari to review findings of the Chittenden County Board of Tax Appraisers. The proceedings below were initiated by the Commissioner of Taxes upon the appeal of two taxpayers, Robert A. and Charlotte I. Marcotte and Alan K. and Sue A. White, from the action of the listers and board of civil authority relating to the 1964 appraisal of their real property in said town.

The petitionee taxpayers filed a motion to quash the petition on the basis that the petition does not state substantial grounds for the issuance of the writ and attacks a determination of fact made by said board.

The real question raised by the motion to quash is whether the petition presents a meritorious case on the facts stated therein.

The writ of certiorari brings up for review only substantial questions of law affecting the merits of a case which involves the judicial action of inferior courts, special tribunals, public officers and bodies exercising judicial functions. The writ issues only when there is no other adequate remedy at law and no other means of review is available. See Burton v. Selectmen, Town of Springfield, 124 Vt. 502, 208 A.2d 318; In re Taconic Racing & Breeding Ass'n, Inc., 125 Vt. 76, 209 A.2d 492.

The petition state facts sufficient to authorize the issuance of the writ, and, on its face, must present a meritorious case. But where the action of the tribunal sought to be reviewed is correct, the writ will not lie. Burton v. Selectmen, Town of Springfield, supra, at page 505, 208 A.2d 318.

It is the settled law of this state that the issuance of the writ of certiorari is largely a matter of discretion. Our practice is to hear the merits of the case upon the petition and subsequent pleadings, and practically decide it upon the granting or refusal of the writ. Ibid, page 505, 208 A.2d 318.

The duty of the county board of appraisers is set forth in 32 V.S.A. §§ 4449 and 4450. They 'shall consider all questions so submitted to them in writing and shall examine all real and tangible personal property therein described.' (emphasis added) This does not mean, however, that on such appeal to the Tax Commissioner the aggrieved taxpayer can frame and file questions not pertinent to the critical issue of appraisal or concerning matters not within the jurisdiction of the county board.

The exhibits attached to the petition show that each taxpayer's appeal to the Commissioner of Taxes was 'based upon the fact that the Listers have not appraised said property at its fair market value as required by 32 V.S.A. sec. 4041; and further, that the taxes have not been uniformly assessed, as required by 32 V.S.A. sec. 4601.' The petition alleges: 'The questions as submitted (see Exhibit C) were two: Was the property appraised at its fair market value? and Were the taxes uniformly assessed?'

The petition also alleges: 'The Appraisers determined the fair market value of the property * * *.' Thus, no question is made but that the county board did find the fair market value of the properties. Furthermore, the findings of the board in their report to the Commissioner of Taxes so states.

The county board lowered the appraisals made by the listers whose appraisals, on appeal, had been affirmed by the board of civil authority. The county board had the power to either raise or lower such appraisals under 32 V.S.A. § 4450 and thus acted within their statutory authority.

The second question submitted to the county board was--'Were the taxes uniformly assessed, as required by 32 V.S.A. sec. 4601.' This section reads: 'Taxes shall be uniformly assessed on the lists of the persons taxed, unless otherwise provided by law.'

Uniform assessment of taxes and uniform appraisal of properties in the grand list are two entirely distinct and different things, and, of course, the appeal to the county board brings to them for consideration only the property of the taxpayer whose list is involved and described in the appeal. 32 V.S.A. §§ 4441 and 4449.

There is no statute which required that property within a municipality shall be appraised uniformly for tax purposes. The only requirement of our statutes is that the listers shall appraise real estate and personal property at its fair market value. 32 V.S.A. §§ 4041 and 4044. When they have done so according to their best and sound judgment, they have performed their statutory duty.

In its final analysis, fair market value is, and can only be arrived at, by the exercise of sound judgment after consideration of all elements which enter into giving a seleable or market value to the property appraised. Obviously, as a result, comparable properties, although not identical, would have some evidentiary value concerning uniformity of appraisal. But the decision of fair market value, or appraisal, still remains a question of the exercise of the sound judgment...