Sparks v. McCluskey, 6385

• Decision Date: 18 June 1958
• Docket Number: No. 6385,6385
• Parties: C. L. SPARKS, Maricopa County Assessor, and James T. O'Neil, James G. Hart, and James E. Lindsay, acting as members of the Maricopa County Board of Equalization, Appellants, v. H. S. and Helen B. mc,CLUSKEY et al., Appellees.
• Court: Arizona Supreme Court

Page 295

327 P.2d 295

84 Ariz. 283

C. L. SPARKS, Maricopa County Assessor, and James T. O'Neil, James G. Hart, and James E. Lindsay, acting as members of the Maricopa County Board of Equalization, Appellants, v. H. S. and Helen B. mc,CLUSKEY et al., Appellees.

No. 6385.

Supreme Court of Arizona.

June 18, 1958.

Charles Stidham, Maricopa County Atty., James J. Caretto, Deputy County Atty. and Terrence A. Carson, Special Counsel, Phoenix, for appellants.

H. S. McCluskey, Phoenix, for appellees.

WINDES, Justice.

Appellees together with a number of other parties sued the tax assessor and county board of equalization of Maricopa county seeking an injunction restraining the extension on the tax roll of taxes proposed to be levied against plaintiffs' properties for the year 1955. The complaint originally was dismissed and this court reversed with directions that it be reinstated. McCluskey v. Sparks, 80 Ariz. 15, 291 P.2d 791, 794. The case is here again after trial resulting in judgment for the plaintiffs.

In returning the case for trial we said:

'The complaint alleges in effect that the assessor systematically and intentionally used a system or method of reaching the value of plaintiffs' properties different from the method or system used in arriving at the values of other like properties and that, as a result thereof, disproportionately excessive values were placed on plaintiffs' properties and that the board of equalization, having knowledge of this, refused to correct the inequality. We think that if these charges against the assessor are true and if it be true the board, being advised of the situation, refused to exercise its powers as a board of equalization in an effort to correct the alleged inequality, the result would be a legal fraud or the equivalent thereof upon the plaintiffs.'

What we must decide on this appeal is whether the plaintiffs did make the proof required by the foregoing statement.

In the taxable year in question, 1955, the assessor selected the frontage on the following areas: East McDowell road from Seventh street to 33rd street; East Thomas road from 15th street to 18th street; and East Indian School road from 16th street to 28th street. Plaintiffs' properties are located on these streets which had been zoned for commercial use. In arriving at the taxable valuation of the lands in these areas the assessor used a certain formula designated as 'land depth curve'. It is quite difficult to determine from the evidence exactly how this formula was operated. Apparently, from illustrations in evidence an estimate of average selling prices per front foot is established. This value is calculated up or down depending upon the depth of the lot over or under 100 feet. According to depth the established price per front foot is divided by a percentage factor to get what is called unit foot price. The unit foot is multiplied by a percentage factor varying according to the depth of the properties to which it is applied to get the assessed valuation.

The undisputed evidence shows and the court found as a fact that on the streets in the areas so selected by the assessor and upon which the land depth curve formula was used, the land values were increased by several hundred per cent over the previous year. There is record evidence that these increases varied from at least 300 to 1600 per cent. There was evidence and the court found that generally the assessed value of properties of like class in the county were not proportionately increased and the court found that generally assessed values for the prior year were merely carried forward with the exception of the areas selected as heretofore related and acreages...