Wal-Mart Stores v. Bd. of Tax Assessors, A00A1183.

• Decision Date: 27 September 2000
• Docket Number: No. A00A1183.,A00A1183.
• Parties: WAL-MART STORES, INC. v. BOARD OF TAX ASSESSORS OF FAYETTE COUNTY.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

539 S.E.2d 869

246 Ga. App. 161

WAL-MART STORES, INC. v. BOARD OF TAX ASSESSORS OF FAYETTE COUNTY.

No. A00A1183.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

September 27, 2000.

Smith, Gambrell & Russell, Edward K. Smith, William B. Wood, Atlanta, for appellant.

McNally, Fox & Cameron, Dennis A. Davenport, Fayetteville, for appellee.

Webb, Tanner & Powell, Steven A. Pickens, Lawrenceville, amicus curiae.

ANDREWS, Presiding Judge.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. appeals from the trial court's order finding it in contempt for refusing to release subpoenaed documents to the Board of Tax Assessors of Fayette County (Board). Because Wal-Mart has failed to point out any error committed by the trial court, we affirm.

This case arose when Wal-Mart refused to turn over certain subpoenaed documents to the Board unless the Board could assure it that Joe Mendola, the Board's contract auditor, would not have access to these documents. The Board brought a petition for contempt against Wal-Mart, and Wal-Mart answered and counterclaimed for a declaratory judgment. The trial court found Wal-Mart in contempt, and this appeal followed.

1. Wal-Mart argues the trial court erred in holding that the contract, as implemented, between the Board and Mendola & Associates (Mendola) constituted a lawful delegation of governmental authority. OCGA § 48-5-298(a) provides that each county board of tax assessors may, subject to the approval of the county governing authority, employ people to:

(1) Assist the board in the mapping, platting, cataloging, indexing, and appraising of taxable properties in the county;

(2) Make, subject to the approval of the board, reevaluations of taxable property in the county; and

(3) Search out and appraise unreturned properties in the county.

We note initially that Wal-Mart never cites to the contract between the Board and Mendola and does not argue that the contract itself is impermissible, but rather that "Mendola's activities go far beyond mere auditing." Many of Wal-Mart's allegations and arguments, however, are unsupported by any citation to the record and, indeed, are not to be found there.

To the extent that Wal-Mart is arguing that the Board does not monitor or control what Mendola does with copies of the records and documents it receives, the Court's order held that all records submitted by Wal-Mart were to be kept on the Board's premises, no storage or use of the documents could occur off the premises, and Mendola could not make or retain copies of any of the documents or records.

Wal-Mart points to the deposition testimony of Douglas Stanley, a longtime Board member, in which he states that the Board delegated to Mendola the power to make sure that all property was returned at its fair market value. Although OCGA § 48-5-298 gives the Board power to employ someone to search out unreturned property and assist in appraising taxable properties, Wal-Mart argues that when these powers are multiplied by 25 counties throughout the State, "the potential for abuse is simply irresistible." This type of argument is not appropriate here. This Court is a court for the correction of errors of law and does not possess any legislative powers, nor does it perform any legislative functions....