Tarabino Real Estate Co. v. Sandoval

• Citation: 115 Colo. 336,173 P.2d 459
• Decision Date: 07 October 1946
• Docket Number: 15417.
• Parties: TARABINO REAL ESTATE CO. v. SANDOVAL, County Assessor of Las Animas County (SEAMAN et al., Interveners).
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

173 P.2d 459

115 Colo. 336

TARABINO REAL ESTATE CO. v. SANDOVAL, County Assessor of Las Animas County (SEAMAN et al., Interveners).

No. 15417.

Supreme Court of Colorado, en Banc.

October 7, 1946

Error to District Court, Las Animas County; John L. East, Judge.

Action by the Tarabino Real Estate Company against Isaac Sandoval as county assessor of Las Animas County, to require reduction in valuation of plaintiff's properties in such county for taxation, in which J. R. Seaman and others, as the State Tax Commission, intervened. To review an adverse judgment plaintiff brings error.

Reversed and remanded with instructions.

HILLIARD J., dissenting.

A county equalization board's approval of county assessor's certification of his valuations of taxpayer's properties after board reduced such valuations by resolution and adjourned did not constitute legal ratification of assessor's valuations, and taxpayer's failure to bring action against assessor to require such reductions until after he learned of assessor's wrongful act through receipt of tax notice did not constitute laches. '35 C.S.A. c. 142, § 292; Const. art. 10, § 15.

Joseph W. Hawley, of Trinidad, for plaintiff in error.

John N. Mabry, or Trinidad, for defendant in error.

Gail L. Ireland, Atty. Gen., H. Lawrence Hinkley, Deputy Atty. Gen., and George K. Thomas, Asst. Atty. Gen., for interveners.

STONE, Justice.

On September 2, 1941, that being the first Tuesday in September the board of county commissioners of Las Animas county sat in regular meeting as a board of equalization pursuant to statute, and representatives of Tarabino Real Estate Company, plaintiff, and plaintiff in error here, appeared thereat and orally protested the valuations of its properties within that county as fixed by the county assessor and applied for adjustment thereof. No action was taken on plaintiff's protest until several days after the time fixed by the statute for holding the first meeting had expired, when action was finally taken making reductions in the valuations of certain of the properties of protestant, and denying changes as to its other properties. Three days' recess was then taken and, upon protest by plaintiff against the valuations of the properties not changed, the board again met after three days' further delay and, October 3, made reductions in the valuations of the other properties of the Tarabino Company.

The county assessor was present at all these meetings, but ignored the attempted reductions in valuation made by the board, and thereafter completed and certified to it his tax rolls, retaining therein the valuations as previously found and fixed by him, and, based on his rolls so certified, the board fixed the annual tax levy. The present action was brought to require a reduction in valuation of plaintiff's properties in accordance with the action of the board, and the cause is here presented for review of the adverse judgment. No question has been raised as to plaintiff's capacity to sue.

It is first urged that there was error in permitting intervention by the Colorado Tax Commission. The statute confers upon the commission 'general supervision over the administration and the enforcement of all laws for the assessment, levying and collection of taxes, and like supervision over the county officers, boards of county commissioners, county boards of equalization, and all other officers and boards of assessment, levy, and collection.' People ex rel. v. Pitcher, 56 Colo. 343, 138 P. 509, 517. Where question arises as to the legality of the action of a county board of equalization, the tax commission is properly concerned. It cannot exercise effective supervision over the enforcement of the revenue laws if barred from the courts where only such enforcement is to be had, and permitting it to intervene in this case was not error. State v. Odd Fellows Hall Ass'n, 123 Neb. 440, 243 N.W. 616.

The only other specified error requiring consideration is that the judgment is contrary to law and the evidence. Section 15 article X, of the Colorado Constitution makes it the duty of the board of county commissioners, sitting as a board of equalization, to adjust and equalize the valuation of real and personal property within its county. This constitutional mandate is implemented by section 292, chapter 142, '35 C.S.A., which, at the time of these proceedings, provided that, for the adjustment and equalization of assessment, the board should hold two regular meetings in each year, 'Commencing on the first Tuesday in September, and continuing not less than three nor more than ten consecutive days, and on the third Tuesday of September, and continuing not less than two nor more than ten consecutive days.' It further provided that in case the time specified for either of the meetings shall prove too short for full consideration of cases for adjustment, the board may 'by order of record' extend the time of either of such meetings as the...