Teton Valley Ranch v. State Bd. of Equalization

• Decision Date: 03 April 1987
• Docket Number: No. 86-185,86-185
• Citation: 735 P.2d 107
• Parties: TETON VALLEY RANCH and Wendell Wilson, Petitioners, v. STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, Teton County Board of Equalization, Teton County Assessor, Respondents.
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Page 107

735 P.2d 107

TETON VALLEY RANCH and Wendell Wilson, Petitioners, v. STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, Teton County Board of Equalization, Teton County Assessor, Respondents.

No. 86-185.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

April 3, 1987.

Ron Arnold of McCartney & Arnold, P.C., Cheyenne, for petitioners.

A.G. McClintock, Atty. Gen., Peter J. Mulvaney, Deputy Atty. Gen., and Robert J. Walters, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondents.

Before BROWN, C.J., and THOMAS, CARDINE, URBIGKIT and MACY, JJ.

MACY, Justice.

This case comes before us on a certification from the district court. We are asked to review an order of the State Board of Equalization which upheld the decision of the Teton County Board of Equalization to modify the assessment of properties known as Teton Valley Ranch Subdivision, including the Sheep Mountain Commercial Subdivision.

We affirm.

Petitioners Teton Valley Ranch and Wendell Wilson present the following issues:

"I. WHETHER THE STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION'S DECISION IS SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE?

"II. WHETHER THE STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION'S DECISION WAS RENDERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW?

"A. WHETHER THE STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION HAS FAILED TO RECOGNIZE THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN 'UNIFORM AND EQUAL ASSESSMENT' AND 'FAIR VALUE'."

Respondents State Board of Equalization, Teton County Board of Equalization, and Teton County Assessor restate the issues as:

"I. IS THE DECISION OF THE APPELLEE STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE?

"II. IS THE DECISION OF THE APPELLEE STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION ARBITRARY OR CONTRARY TO LAW?

"III. IS THE DECISION OF THE APPELLEE STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION CONTRARY TO THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENT THAT PROPERTY BE VALUED AT ITS 'FAIR VALUE' FOR PROPERTY TAX PURPOSES?"

Petitioners are record owners of certain real property located in Teton County, Wyoming, generally known as the Teton Valley Ranch Subdivision, Units I, II, and III and the Sheep Mountain Commercial Subdivision. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service desired to exchange federal land for this property; therefore, four appraisals of the property were performed.

The first two appraisals were completed at the request of the Fish and Wildlife Service. Petitioners were dissatisfied with the results of these appraisals and, feeling that their property was worth more, arranged for the completion of two additional appraisals by other appraisers. The range of values resulting from the four appraisals was from a low of $3,219,090 to a high of $6 million. A so-called "blue ribbon" panel was commissioned to review only the two middle appraisals and to advise which of the two more closely reflected the current market value of petitioners' property.

On December 17, 1984, the panel issued a "STATEMENT OF FINDINGS" indicating that the appraisal of $3,515,000 more closely reflected the current market value of the property. Upon the basis of the "blue ribbon" panel's analysis and final recommendation, the fair market value of $3,515,000 was used in making the land exchange.

The county assessor assessed the subject property for the 1985 tax year at a value of $564,708, which indicated a current market value of $7,058,850. Petitioners filed an appeal of the assessed valuation with the county board pursuant to § 39-2-302, W.S.1977. On July 16, 1985, the county board issued its decision indicating

"[t]hat the fair value of the property in question is $6,100,000.00, and that this amount is the sum upon which the tax assessment should be based."

Although this finding was a reduction in the county assessor's value of the property, it was adverse to petitioners. They timely filed a notice of appeal before the state board, and a hearing was held on August 28, 1985. On November 4, 1985, the state board issued an order affirming, for tax purposes, the value of petitioners' property at $6.1 million as set by the county board.

On December 9, 1985, petitioners filed a petition for judicial review in district court. Both petitioners and respondents having requested that the proceeding be certified directly to the Supreme Court pursuant to Rule 12.09, W.R.A.P., the district court entered its order on July 15, 1986, certifying the case to this Court.

In essence, each of petitioners' claims questions the manner in which the state board arrived at its decision. Therefore, we will consider the claims together.

Section 39-2-302 provides in pertinent part:

"(b) The county board of equalization shall:

* * *

* * *

"(iv) Hear and determine the complaint of any person relative to any property assessment or value as returned by the county assessor subject to subsection (c) of this section.

"(c) * * * Any person wishing to contest an assessment of his property shall file a statement under oath with the county board of equalization specifying the reasons why the assessment is incorrect and may appear at either meeting of the board in support of the claim. A county board of equalization may receive evidence relative to any assessment * * *. Minutes of the examination shall be taken and filed with the county clerk."

In accordance with this section, petitioners filed a sworn statement with the county board in which they set forth the facts relating to: (1) the land in question; (2) the appraisals conducted in conjunction with the proposed exchange of that land; and (3) the assessment performed by the county assessor. Petitioners also requested that the county board adopt the finding of the blue ribbon panel that the value of the land for tax purposes was $3,515,000. In addition, petitioners filed copies of the county's assessment and the blue ribbon panel's findings. At the hearing before the county board on June 10, 1985, petitioners presented argument and evidence and agreed to obtain copies of the four initial appraisals for the board members. The county assessor also appeared before the county board and explained that the difference in values between her assessment and the other appraisals occurred because, when a plat is subdivided, she is required by the state board to value each lot separately, whereas the other appraisals were made on the basis of the sale of the overall piece of property. The county board took the matter under advisement and, on July 16, 1985, issued its findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Petitioners appealed to the state board pursuant to § 39-1-304(a), W.S.1977, which provides that "[t]he state board of equalization shall * * * hear appeals from county boards of equalization."

In accordance with Chapter XVII, § 4(a) of the Rules and Regulations of the Wyoming State Tax Commission ¹ and § 16-3-107, W.S.1977, ² a contested case hearing was held before the state board on August 28, 1985. At the hearing, prior to the taking of any testimony or evidence, the respondents requested the board to take judicial notice of the record of the proceedings before the county board. Petitioners made no objection, and the hearing officer granted the request. Thereafter, in the course of the hearing, the following exhibits were introduced and admitted: the four initial appraisals, the blue ribbon panel's report and findings, the county assessor's summary of value zones, maps of the property in question, and a letter from the state board to the county board stating that subdivision lands were being improperly assessed and directing the county board to ensure that assessments of such land be properly made in the future. In addition, the state board heard the testimony of Robert Mitchell, a member of the blue ribbon panel, James Shaw, the individual responsible for arranging for the appraisals and managing the land transaction between petitioners and the Fish and Wildlife Service, and DeAnn Sutton, the assessor for Teton County.

In a comprehensive statement of findings of fact and conclusions of law issued November 4, 1985, the state board found in part:

"1. That on or about May 22, 1985, the Teton County Assessor prepared assessment schedules respecting [three] parcels ow[n]ed by Teton Valley Ranch * * *.

"2. That the above-mentioned assessment reflected that the subject parcels were assessed at a value of $245,658.00, $178,978.00, and $117,536.00 respectively as rural subdivision lots.

"3. That the subject parcels were duly platted and approved for subdivision by the Teton County Commissioners in 1976 * * * and in 1977 * * *.

* * *

* * *

"5. That [the petitioners] also [own] property in Teton County, known as Sheep Mountain Commercial Subdivision. The county assessor prepared an assessment schedule on this property on or about April 11, 1985 which * * * reflects an assessed valuation of $22,536.00. This property was duly platted and approved for subdivision by the Teton County Commissioners in 1980. * * *

"6. That the subject properties are located in the D-2-1 Value Zone of District 2 in Teton County. * * * The value zones in Teton County stem from a manual created from a reappraisal of Teton County property in 1978 done by a professional appraisal firm. According to the summary of values in the above-mentioned manual, the estimated value per acre is $30,000.00 for lands up to 4 acres; for parcels between 4 and 7 acres, the estimated value for the parcel is $120,000.00; for lands between 7 and 19.5 acres, the estimated value per acre is $17,150.00; and for parcels having between 19.5 to 35 acres, the estimated value for the parcel is $335,000.00. These values apply for the 1985 tax year and were updated by the county assessor for the current tax year.

* * *

* * *

"8. That the Petitioners' property known as Teton Valley Ranch Subdivision, as well as the Sheep Mountain Commercia[l] Subdivision, was the subject of several appraisals between 1981 and 1984 for the purposes of a land exchange with the federal government. Specifically, four appraisals were performed on Teton Valley Ranch Subdivision * * * and the Sheep Mountain Commercial Subdivision * * *.

"9. That the four above-mentioned...