Wash. Cnty. v. Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of Ark.
Decision Date | 04 February 2016 |
Docket Number | No. CV–15–357,CV–15–357 |
Citation | 480 S.W.3d 173 |
Parties | Washington County; Jeff Williams, Washington County Tax Assessor ; David Ruff, Washington County Tax Collector; and Fayetteville School District No. 1, Appellants v. Board of Trustees of the University of Arkansas, Appellee |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Steven S. Zega, Washington County Attorney, for appellants Washington County; Russell Hill, elected successor to Jeff Williams, Washington County Assessor; and David Ruff, Washington County Tax Collector.
Davis, Clark, Butt, Carithers & Taylor, PLC, Fayetteville, by: Constance G. Clark and William Jackson Butt II, for appellant Fayetteville School District No. 1.
Fred Harrison, General Counsel, by: T. Scott Varady, William R. Kincaid, and Matthew McCoy, Associate General Counsel, for appellee.
Leslie Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: Bourgon B. Reynolds, Ass't Att'y Gen., amicus curiae in support of appellee.
This appeal stems from the ad valorem taxation of certain parcels of property owned by the appellee, Board of Trustees of the University of Arkansas ("the University"). In 2011, 2012, and 2013, the University submitted applications to the appellant, Washington County Tax Assessor,1 seeking immunity from taxation, or alternatively, exemption from taxation for tax years 2010, 2011, and 2012.2 Thereafter, litigation ensued, and the cases were consolidated on the joint motion of the parties. The procedural history of this matter is as follows. The Washington County Tax Assessor denied the University's applications. The University appealed the denial to the Washington County Board of Equalization, which affirmed the assessor's decision. Under protest, the University paid the assessed taxes and appealed the Board of Equalization's decision to Washington County Court. The Washington County Court affirmed the Board of Equalization's decision. On December 19, 2012, the University appealed to the circuit court. On January 18, 2013, the University filed its complaint in the circuit court and filed its amended complaint on May 13, 2014. The Fayetteville School District intervened in the case, asserting that the greatest portion of the taxes assessed and collected by Washington County are distributed to the school district, giving the school district an interest related to the property and taxes at issue. Washington County and the University did not object to the school district's intervention. The appellants will hereinafter be collectively referred to as "Fayetteville."
Once litigation proceeded in the circuit court, competing summary judgment motions were filed by both parties. On October 28, 2014, the circuit court held a hearing. On December 31, 2014, the circuit court announced its ruling from the bench, granting the University's motion for summary judgment and denying Fayetteville's and entered an order to that effect that same day. On January 12, 2015, Fayetteville filed a motion pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 52(b) for amended findings of facts and for additional findings, including a Rule 54(b) certificate. On January 29, 2015, Fayetteville filed its notice of appeal. On February 2, 2015, the circuit court entered a final order. On February 3, 2015, Fayetteville filed its second notice of appeal.
The parties timely filed their respective briefs, and with permission of the court, the Attorney General of the State of Arkansas filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the University. From the circuit court's order granting the University summary judgment, Fayetteville timely appeals and presents one issue: whether the circuit court erred in holding that the University is entitled to sovereign immunity from ad valorem taxation.
Moving to our standard of review, "summary judgment may be granted only when there are no genuine issues of material fact to be litigated, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Cannady v. St. Vincent Infirmary Med. Ctr., 2012 Ark. 369, 423 S.W.3d 548. "Ordinarily, upon reviewing a circuit court's decision on a summary-judgment motion, we would examine the record to determine if genuine issues of material fact exist." May v. Akers–Lang, 2012 Ark. 7, 386 S.W.3d 378. However, in a case where the parties agree on the facts, we simply determine whether the appellee was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Hobbs v. Jones, 2012 Ark. 293, 412 S.W.3d 844. State v. Cassell, 2013 Ark. 221, 4–5, 427 S.W.3d 663, 666 (citations omitted). "De novo review means that the entire case is open for review." Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London v. Bass, 2015 Ark. 178, at 9, 461 S.W.3d 317, 323 (citations omitted).
Also on review, Gatzke v. Weiss, 375 Ark. 207, 211, 289 S.W.3d 455, 458 (2008) (citations omitted).
With these standards in mind, we turn now to the issue on appeal.
At issue is the circuit court's February 2, 2015, order which granted the University's motion for summary judgment and held that the University was immune from ad valorem taxation based on sovereign immunity:
Accordingly, the narrow issue in this case is whether the University is immune from ad valorem taxation as to the specific parcels involved in this case.
We turn to the genesis of the sovereign state. Sovereignty is the West Encyclopedia on American Law, 2d ed., 258–89, Vol. 9 (2005).
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of Ark. v. Andrews
...521 S.W.3d 459.This court has held that the Board is an instrumentality of the State and is immune from suit. See Washington Cty. v. Bd. of Trs. , 2016 Ark. 34, 480 S.W.3d 173 (holding that the university is an instrumentality of the State and that it was immune from ad valorem taxation); B......
-
Landers v. Stone
...a matter of law. Waters v. Millsap, 2015 Ark. 272, 465 S.W.3d 851. As to issues of law, our review is de novo. Washington Cty. v. Bd. of Trustees, 2016 Ark. 34, 480 S.W.3d 173.III. Standing In their brief, appellees continue to argue, as they did below, that appellants lack standing to chal......
-
Smith v. Pavan
...fact to be litigated, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See, e.g. , Washington Cty. v. Bd. of Tr. of the Univ. of Ark. , 2016 Ark. 34, at 3, 480 S.W.3d 173, 175. Ordinarily, upon reviewing a circuit court's decision on a summary-judgment motion, we would exami......
-
Magrans v. Andrada
...As to issues of law presented, our review is de novo, meaning the entire case is open for review. Washington Cty. v. Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of Ark. , 2016 Ark. 34, at 3, 480 S.W.3d 173, 175. It is well-established Arkansas law that when an employee has been released or dismissed, and the ......