Staples v. T K G El Con Ctr. L L C
| Decision Date | 18 May 2017 |
| Docket Number | TX 2014-000606 |
| Parties | BILL STAPLES v. T K G EL CON CENTER L L C, et al. |
| Court | Arizona Tax Court |
CLERK OF THE COURT T. Cooley Deputy
ROBERTA S LIVESAY
JODI A BAIN
The Court has considered Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, filed September 13, 2016, Defendants' Amended Opposition and Defendants/Counterclaimants' Amended Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, filed December 8, 2016, Plaintiff's Reply and Response, filed February 17, 2017 and Defendant's Reply, filed April 17, 2017.
The Court also has Plaintiff's First Motion to Amend Complaint, filed April 6, 2017 and fully briefed as of May 8, 2017.
The Court benefited from oral argument on the motions on May 15, 2017.
A plaintiff has an absolute right to dismiss his case with prejudice. Damron v. Sledge, 105 Ariz. 151, 153-54 (1969). Because the time limit for filing an appeal has long since passed, dismissal of the 2014 claims amounts to dismissal with prejudice. Plaintiff may therefore do so. However, A.R.S. § 12-348(B) applies. 4501 Northpoint LP v. Maricopa County, 212 Ariz. 96, 101 ¶ 18 (2006).
Neither party disputes that El Con Center is, and should be, classified as a shopping center. A.R.S. § 42-13201 defines "shopping center" as "an area that is comprised [sic] of three or more commercial establishments ... that is owned or managed as a unit...." A shopping center is also valued as a unit. In an appeal, it is valued according to either SLBR or RCLD, unless the
shopping center has been sold within the preceding two years. A.R.S. § 42-13205. It is the shopping center, not the individual stores, that is the taxable entity. Nordstrom, Inc. v. Maricopa County, 207 Ariz. 553, 557 ¶ 14 (App. 2004). Nordstrom overruled a recently-published Tax Court opinion, May Dept. Stores Co. v. Maricopa County, 205 Ariz. 442 (Tax 2003), which had held that the shopping center classification was to be applied to individual unit owners: "for the Shopping Center statute to be given meaning it would have to be applicable to individual owners/taxpayers within the shopping center just as it would be available to the mall owner if it were the sole taxpayer, provided the elements of the statute are satisfied." Id. at 444. Nordstrom looked to the "plain language" of the statute in holding that, because a shopping center was defined as being "comprised of three or more commercial establishments," no individual commercial establishment could be taxed as a shopping center. Supra at 556-57 ¶ 10. Because the valuation of the property must be that of the shopping center as a whole, the sum of its parts, the sum of the valuations of each unit and parking and common areas, must by definition be the valuation of the whole.
If § 42-13302(B) applies as Defendant urges, this becomes impossible. The shopping center itself must be valued using the replacement cost less depreciation method, as required by § 42-13203(A), or if the owner qualifies under § 42-13204, using SLBR; on appeal, the reviewing entity shall use the same method or, if the owner has chosen the income method, SLBR or RCLD (or a...
To continue reading
Request your trial