Prather v. Martin, 74--239
Decision Date | 10 February 1975 |
Docket Number | No. 74--239,74--239 |
Citation | 257 Ark. 576,519 S.W.2d 72 |
Parties | Mary Delia PRATHER et al., Appellants, v. Joe MARTIN, Sheriff and Collector, Appellee. |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Clark, McNeil & Watson, Conway, for appellants.
Alex G. Streett, Russellville, Francis T. Donovan, Conway, for appellee.
The appellants brought these two suits, consolidated below, to enjoin the Faulkner County Collector from collecting real estate taxes attributable to increases in assessed valuations that were assertedly made without notice to the complaining landowners. The trial judge, finding that 'the receipt of notice makes no difference,' dismissed the complaints for want of equity.
Both cases involve a tract-by-tract reassessment that was undertaken in 1972. That procedure was discussed in detail in Dierks Forests v. Shell, 240 Ark. 966, 403 S.W.2d 83 (1966), where we pointed out that notice to the property owner and an opportunity to be heard are constitutionally essential to such a proceeding. The statute requires the assessor to give that notice and to inform the landowner of his right to apply to the equalization board for a review of the increased assessment. Ark.Stat.Ann. § 84--437 (Repl.1960).
We consider first the Prather appeal, for there is no substantial dispute about the facts in that case. After the reassessment had been completed in July or August of 1972, the county clerk assumed the responsibility of sending out the required notices to landowners whose assessments had been increased. Mrs. Prather was living in Little Rock and her co-owner in Arkadelphia, but the county clerk was unable even by diligent efforts to ascertain either address. Consequently the notice, although prepared, was never mailed and was still in the county clerk's files when the case was tried. Thus it is undisputed that the required statutory notice of the increase in the Prather assessment was not given.
The appellee argues, however, that no notice was necessary, because the landowners had an adequate opportunity to apply for a judicial review of the assessment when they first learned of the increase almost a year later, in August of 1973. Here counsel rely upon that provision of the statute which permits a landowner to appeal to the county court without having first exhausted his remedy before the equalization board in all cases 'where the petitioner shall have had no opportunity to appear before said board.' Section 84--708. Counsel contend that no matter when these landowners learned of the increase--even a year later--the ten-day period for an appeal to the county court then began to run. Section 84--718.
That contention is unsound. Section 84--437, supra, perhaps goes beyond the minimum constitutional standard by requiring the assessor not only to give the landowner notice of the increase but also to inform him of his right to apply to the equalization board for a review. The appellee's argument would effectively nullify the protection...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Haseman v. Union Bank of Mena, 79-319
...U.S. 373, 28 S.Ct. 708, 52 L.Ed. 1103 (1908); Glidden v. Harrington, 189 U.S. 255, 23 S.Ct. 574, 47 L.Ed. 798 (1903); Prather v. Martin, 257 Ark. 576, 519 S.W.2d 72 (1975). The second allegation of error concerns an instruction the court gave over the objections of the appellant regarding t......