Taconic Racing & Breeding Ass'n, Inc., In re

• Decision Date: 06 April 1965
• Docket Number: No. 1902,1902
• Citation: 125 Vt. 76,209 A.2d 492
• Parties: In re TACONIC RACING AND BREEDING ASSOCIATION, INC.
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Page 492

209 A.2d 492

125 Vt. 76

In re TACONIC RACING AND BREEDING ASSOCIATION, INC.

No. 1902.

Supreme Court of Vermont.

April 6, 1965.

Black & Plante, White River Junction, for petitioner.

A. Pearley Feen, Burlington, for petitionee.

John Connarn, Atty. Gen., Montpelier, for the State.

Before HOLDEN, C. J., and SHANGRAW, BARNEY, SMITH and KEYSER, JJ.

SHANGRAW, Justice.

The town of Pownal listed the real property of the Taconic Racing and Breeding Association, Inc., in its grand list at a tax base figure of $700,000. This represented 12 1/2% of the actual vaue placed on the property by the listers. The racing association went before the local board of civil authority for relief, and, failing there, asked for a review by a county board of tax appraisers, by filing an appropriate notice with the commissioner of taxes, in accordance with 32 V.S.A. § 4441. The county board accepted the $700,000.00 figure originally fixed by the listers.

Up to this point all procedures required had been fully prescribed by the pertinent statutes, and those procedures had been followed by the racing association. Since no appeal as of right beyond this point was provided for, the racing association has asked for a review of the matter in this Court by a writ of certiorari. Pownal met this petition with a motion to quash.

The petition complains that the county board failed to comply with the statutory requirements, and asks that the matter be resubmitted to the board with directions to carry out their duties. The motion to quash claims that the petition is being used as a device to review the correctness of the appraisal and other questions of fact, although the board's decisions on these factual issues are not reviewable. The racing association insists that there is no factual issue being brought here for review, but maintains that all it seeks is to have the county board fulfill its statutory responsibilities.

32 V.S.A. § 4446 directs that the commissioner of taxes refer such appeals to a county board of appraisers with directions touching the questions to be decided by the board. 32 V.S.A. § 4449 provides for hearing by the board and requires them to consider all questions submitted in writing by the appeal, and to examine all real and tangible personal property described in the appeal. Under 32 V.S.A. § 4450 the board may raise or lower an appraisal, and is required to determine the questions submitted and make a written report to the commissioner of taxes.

It is well settled that the issuing of a writ of certiorari is largely a matter of discretion. The practice in this state is to hear the merits of the case upon the petition and subsequent pleadings, and practically decide it upon the granting or refusal of the writ. Davidson v. Whitehill, 87 Vt. 499, 502, 89 A. 1081; City of St. Albans v. Avery, 95 Vt. 249, 252, 114 A. 31; Chase v. Billings, 106 Vt. 149, 152, 153, 170 A. 903.

The writ issues only when there is no other adequate remedy at law, and brings up for review only substantial questions of law affecting the merits of the case involved in the proceedings below. Davidson v. Whitehill, supra, 87 Vt. 508, 89 A. 1081; Lewis v. Holden, 118 Vt. 59, 61, 99 A.2d 758; Burton v. Selectmen, Town of Springfield, 124 Vt. ----, 208 A.2d 318.

The petition attacks the proceedings before the county board of appraisers in three particulars: first, that the board reported that the listers' valuation was 'nearly correct.'; second, that the board described the valuation of the listers as 'fair', and third, that the board stated that its review included real and personal property, although the listers' appraisal was, by its terms, confined to real property.

As to points one and two, although the language is unfortunately imprecise, enough appears to demonstrate that the board found the valuation of the listers such an accurate reflection of the value of the taxable assets of the racing association that that basis should be retained as the tax listing. Considering the somewhat unusual character of the property involved it can hardly be expected that its value could be ascertained with mathematical certainty.

Point three is addressed to the board's reference to the property appraised as real and personal property. Notwithstanding its reference to personal property this leads us to the record in determining what property was actually appraised by the board of appraisers, regardless of its characterization.

In referring to the property considered and appraised by the listers, board of civil authority, and finally by the Bennington County Appeal Board, in each instance we find the following description.

'128 acres of land, race track, grandstand, stable buildings, restaurant building and equipment'

Only parcels of land, grandstand and buildings are described in the 1963 and 1964 grand list of Pownal, Vermont, as the property owned by petitioner. No personal property is listed.

In the findings of fact and opinion of the board of appraisers we find the following detailed description and location of the property appraised by this board.

'The property of appellant consists of 128 acres of land fronting in part on U....