Rice v. Fulton Cnty.
| Decision Date | 15 December 2020 |
| Docket Number | A20A1898 |
| Citation | 852 S.E.2d 860,358 Ga.App. 1 |
| Parties | RICE et al. v. FULTON COUNTY et al. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Conley Griggs Partin, Ranse M. Partin ; Knight Palmer, Jonathan M. Palmer ; G. Roger Land & Associates, G. Roger Land, Mitchell S. Graham ; The Hillis Firm, Lindsey W. Hillis, Delia J. Williams- Carroll, for appellants.
Smith Gambrell & Russell, Leah Ward Sears, Edward H. Wasmuth, Jr., Colin D. Delaney, Anthony J. Rollins, R. Danielle Burnette ; Patrise M. Perkins-Hooker, Kaye W. Burwell, Cheryl M. Ringer, Detriss Thomas ; Bovis Kyle Burch & Medlin, C. Sam Thomas, Michael D. Stacy ; Reginald C. Martin, Anamaria Hazard, Christa L. Freeman, Jeffrey S. Haymore; Lindsey & Lacy, Richard P. Lindsey ; Brad M. Bowman, Chad Alexis; Turner Ross Germain, William R. Turner, Meredith W. Germain ; Smith Welch Webb & White, Andrew J. Welch III, Lajuana C. Ransaw, Priya M. Patel ; Carothers & Mitchell, Richard A. Carothers, E. Ronald Bennett, Jr. ; McNally Fox Grant & Davenport, Dennis A. Davenport, Patrick A. Stough, E. Allison Ivey Cox; David B. Davidson, Robert J. Hulsey ; Freeman Mathis & Gary, Daniel W. Lee, Matthew M. Weiss ; Jarrard & Davis, Ken E. Jarrard, G. Aaron Meyer; Fincher Denmark, Winston A. Denmark, Emilia C. Walker, Valorri C. Jones, Michael Huening, John T. O'Neal, for appellees.
The plaintiffs brought this putative class action on behalf of all Fulton County homeowners who purchased their homes in 2015 or 2016, seeking a refund of ad valorem property taxes under OCGA § 48-5-380 from Fulton County and several of its municipalities1 based on alleged illegal assessments of their properties. In their complaint, as amended, the plaintiffs alleged that the Fulton County Board of Tax Assessors ("Board") conducted illegal assessments of their properties under state constitutional and statutory law by intentionally singling out their recently sold properties for reappraisal at the increased sales price while leaving the assessed values of comparable unsold properties undisturbed. The trial court subsequently granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss the plaintiffs’ amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, concluding that the plaintiffs had failed to state a tax refund claim under OCGA § 48-5-380 and instead should have pursued a tax appeal under a different statute. The plaintiffs now appeal from the trial court's dismissal order. For the reasons discussed more fully below, we reverse.
We review de novo a trial court's grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Southstar Energy Svcs. v. Ellison , 286 Ga. 709, 710 (1), 691 S.E.2d 203 (2010).
Under OCGA § 9-11-12 (b) (6), a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted should not be sustained unless (1) the allegations of the complaint disclose with certainty that the claimant would not be entitled to relief under any state of provable facts asserted in support thereof; and (2) the movant establishes that the claimant could not possibly introduce evidence within the framework of the complaint sufficient to warrant a grant of the relief sought. In deciding a motion to dismiss, all pleadings are to be construed most favorably to the party who filed them, and all doubts regarding such pleadings must be resolved in the filing party's favor.
(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Renton v. Watson , 319 Ga. App. 896, 897, 739 S.E.2d 19 (2013). See Northway v. Allen , 291 Ga. 227, 229, 728 S.E.2d 624 (2012).
Guided by these principles, we turn to the plaintiffs’ amended complaint, which alleged as follows. The Board assesses all real property located in Fulton County, and those assessments are then used by the defendants to generate tax bills for property owners. The named plaintiffs and putative class members are homeowners who purchased real property in Fulton County in 2015 or 2016. The plaintiffs paid property taxes in 2016 and 2017 based on assessments of their properties by the Board that the plaintiffs allege were illegal.
More specifically, the amended complaint alleged that the Board, in assessing the fair market values of the plaintiffs’ properties for the 2016 and 2017 tax years, did not follow its customary appraisal methodology and instead increased the assessed value of the plaintiffs’ properties to equal the sales prices from 2015 or 2016. According to the amended complaint, except in "rare instances," the Board did not reassess the values of comparable residential properties that had not been sold. The amended complaint further alleged that, as a result of the Board's divergent treatment of sold and unsold properties, the plaintiffs were required to pay property taxes to the defendants for the tax years of 2016 and 2017 that were significantly higher than the taxes paid by owners of similarly situated residential properties that did not sell in 2015 or 2016.
In 2018, the plaintiffs filed their putative class action complaint against Fulton County seeking property tax refunds pursuant to OCGA § 48-5-380.2 The plaintiffs thereafter twice amended their complaint and added additional plaintiffs and several municipalities within Fulton County as defendants. The plaintiffs alleged in their complaint, as amended, that by appraising their properties in 2016 and 2017 based on sales price without reappraising similarly situated residential properties that had not been sold in 2015 or 2016, the Board violated the Uniformity Clause of the Georgia Constitution,3 the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the equalization requirement imposed by OCGA § 48-5-306 (a).4 Consequently, the plaintiffs alleged that they were due refunds from the defendants of the taxes illegally assessed in 2016 and 2017, in addition to pre- and post-judgment interest and attorney fees and expenses under OCGA § 13-6-11.
The defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ amended complaint, asserting that the plaintiffs had failed to state a claim for a tax refund under OCGA § 48-5-380. According to the defendants, the plaintiffs were limited to challenging the Board's actions through the tax appeal process set out in OCGA § 48-5-311, which the plaintiffs had failed to do.5
Following a hearing, the trial court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss in April 2020. The trial court concluded that the facts as alleged in the amended complaint failed to state a cognizable claim for an illegal assessment of the plaintiffs’ properties so as to bring the claim within the ambit of the tax refund statute, OCGA § 48-5-380.6 The trial court further concluded that the gravamen of the plaintiffs’ allegations was that the Board, in assessing the value of their properties for the 2016 and 2017 tax years, had failed to consider other factors beyond the recent sale price, and the court ruled that such a claim could only be pursued through the tax appeal process set forth in OCGA § 48-5-311.
On appeal from the dismissal order, the plaintiffs argue that the trial court erred in holding that their complaint failed to state a claim for a tax refund under OCGA § 48-5-380 and that they thus were limited to pursuing a tax appeal under OCGA § 48-5-311. We agree.
Taxpayers generally have two avenues for challenging an improper tax assessment: (1) the appeal process in OCGA § 48-5-311, and (2) the refund procedure in OCGA § 48-5-380. These distinct remedies, however, serve different purposes. An appeal under OCGA § 48-5-311 provides the most expeditious resolution of a taxpayer's dissatisfaction with an assessment, preferably before taxes are paid. In contrast, an OCGA § 48-5-380 refund action ... [provides a] procedure to protect taxpayers from later-discovered defects in the assessment process which have resulted in taxes being erroneously or illegally assessed and collected.
(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Slivka v. Nelson , 328 Ga. App. 468, 470, 762 S.E.2d 162 (2014).
Id. In contrast, "[i]f the taxpayer alleges that the assessment is based on matters of fact in the record which are inaccurate, or that the assessment was reached by the use of illegal procedures, then the taxpayer has asserted a claim that the taxes were ‘erroneously or illegally assessed and collected’ " under OCGA § 48-5-380. Id. Furthermore, in Nat. Health Network , 270 Ga. at 727 (2), 514 S.E.2d 422, the Supreme Court pointed out that an "illegal" tax assessment that can be pursued under OCGA § 48-5-380 includes the circumstance where "a taxing authority assessed and collected taxes...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Local Government
...at 156, 860 S.E.2d at 837.67. Id. at 156-57, 860 S.E.2d at 837.68. Id. at 157, 860 S.E.2d at 837.69. Id. at 157, 860 S.E.2d at 838.70. 358 Ga. App. 1, 852 S.E.2d 860 (2020).71. Id. at 9, 852 S.E.2d at 867. 72. Id. at 1-2, 852 S.E.2d at 862.73. Id. at 2-3, 852 S.E.2d at 863.74. Id. at 3, 852......