SUBUD OF WOODSTOCK INC. v. Town of Barnard, 98-311.

Docket NºNo. 98-311.
Citation732 A.2d 749
Case DateMay 10, 1999
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Vermont

732 A.2d 749

SUBUD OF WOODSTOCK, INC.
v.
TOWN OF BARNARD

No. 98-311.

Supreme Court of Vermont.

May 10, 1999.


732 A.2d 750
Present AMESTOY, C.J., and DOOLEY, MORSE, JOHNSON and SKOGLUND, JJ

ENTRY ORDER

The Town of Barnard appeals from a decision of the Division of Property Valuation and Review that certain property was entitled to tax-exempt status. The Town contends the division lacked jurisdiction to determine the tax-exempt status of the property. We agree, and therefore vacate the judgment.

Subud of Woodstock, Inc. owns a building and approximately four acres in the town. In 1976, the Town voted to grant Subud tax-exempt status, and thereafter exempted the building and two of the four acres from the property tax. In 1997, the Town voted to rescind the property's tax-exempt status. Thereafter, the board of listers assessed the property at $97,200. Subud filed a grievance with the listers, who subsequently lowered the value to $96,900. Subud appealed to the board of civil authority, claiming that the property: (1) should be tax exempt because it was used for "pious" purposes under 32 V.S.A. § 3802(4), and (2) was assessed at more than its fair market value. The board concluded that the property was properly assessed, and that it lacked the statutory authority to decide the tax-exemption question.

Subud appealed the board's decision to the division, again claiming that the property should be exempt because it was used for religious purposes, and that it was assessed at more than its fair market value. The Town objected that the division lacked authority to determine the tax-exempt status of the property. The director of the division denied the objection. At the subsequent hearing before the appointed appraiser, Subud indicated that it was not contesting the value placed on the property, but only the removal of the tax exemption. Subud then presented evidence that it was a religious organization. The appraiser concluded that the property was used for religious purposes and, therefore, was entitled to be tax exempt. This appeal followed.

It is well settled that "[p]ublic administrative bodies have only such adjudicatory jurisdiction as is conferred on them by statute, with nothing presumed in favor of their jurisdiction." Gloss v. Delaware & Hudson R.R., 135 Vt. 419, 422, 378 A.2d 507, 509 (1977). The Legislature has made it clear that administrative departments may exercise only those powers expressly conferred, and that authority...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 practice notes
  • Our Lady of Ephesus House of Prayer, Inc. v. Town of Jamaica, No. 2004-001
    • United States
    • Vermont United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • January 28, 2005
    ...assessment appeal procedure and bring a declaratory judgment action, see Subud of Woodstock, Inc. v. Town of Barnard, 169 Vt. 582, 583, 732 A.2d 749, 750 (1999) (mem.); Gifford Mem'l Hosp. v. Town of Randolph, 119 Vt. 66, 70, 118 A.2d 480, 483 (1955), OLEHOP insisted that its challenge was ......
  • In re Hinsdale Farm, 2004 VT 72 (VT 8/13/2003), No. 2002-566.
    • United States
    • Vermont United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • August 13, 2003
    ...expressly conferred, and that authority cannot arise through implication." Subud of Woodstock, Inc. v. Town of Barnard, 169 Vt. 582, 583, 732 A.2d 749, 750 (1999) (mem.) (citing to 3 V.S.A. § ¶ 11. The only appellate power the Legislature expressly conferred on the WRB was to hear appeals f......
  • State v. Grega, No. 99-058.
    • United States
    • Vermont United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • December 30, 1999
    ...jurisdiction over the motion. Therefore, we vacate the decision below. See Subud of Woodstock, Inc. v. Town of Barnard, 169 Vt. ___, ___, 732 A.2d 749, 751 (1999) (in absence of subject-matter jurisdiction, decision below must be The State argues that we should affirm the decision because t......
  • In re Hinsdale Farm, No. 02-566.
    • United States
    • Vermont United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • August 13, 2004
    ...expressly conferred, and that authority cannot arise through implication." Subud of Woodstock, Inc. v. Town of Barnard, 169 Vt. 582, 583, 732 A.2d 749, 750 (1999) (mem.) (citing to 3 V.S.A. § ¶ 11. The only appellate power the Legislature expressly conferred on the WRB was to hear appeals f......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 cases
  • Our Lady of Ephesus House of Prayer, Inc. v. Town of Jamaica, No. 2004-001
    • United States
    • Vermont United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • January 28, 2005
    ...assessment appeal procedure and bring a declaratory judgment action, see Subud of Woodstock, Inc. v. Town of Barnard, 169 Vt. 582, 583, 732 A.2d 749, 750 (1999) (mem.); Gifford Mem'l Hosp. v. Town of Randolph, 119 Vt. 66, 70, 118 A.2d 480, 483 (1955), OLEHOP insisted that its challenge was ......
  • In re Hinsdale Farm, 2004 VT 72 (VT 8/13/2003), No. 2002-566.
    • United States
    • Vermont United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • August 13, 2003
    ...conferred, and that authority cannot arise through implication." Subud of Woodstock, Inc. v. Town of Barnard, 169 Vt. 582, 583, 732 A.2d 749, 750 (1999) (mem.) (citing to 3 V.S.A. § ¶ 11. The only appellate power the Legislature expressly conferred on the WRB was to hear appeals from D......
  • State v. Grega, No. 99-058.
    • United States
    • Vermont United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • December 30, 1999
    ...jurisdiction over the motion. Therefore, we vacate the decision below. See Subud of Woodstock, Inc. v. Town of Barnard, 169 Vt. ___, ___, 732 A.2d 749, 751 (1999) (in absence of subject-matter jurisdiction, decision below must be The State argues that we should affirm the decision because t......
  • In re Hinsdale Farm, No. 02-566.
    • United States
    • Vermont United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • August 13, 2004
    ...conferred, and that authority cannot arise through implication." Subud of Woodstock, Inc. v. Town of Barnard, 169 Vt. 582, 583, 732 A.2d 749, 750 (1999) (mem.) (citing to 3 V.S.A. § ¶ 11. The only appellate power the Legislature expressly conferred on the WRB was to hear appeals from D......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT