Washoe Cnty. v. Otto
| Decision Date | 09 August 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 56253.,56253. |
| Citation | 128 Nev. Adv. Op. 40,282 P.3d 719 |
| Parties | WASHOE COUNTY, Nevada, a Political Subdivision of the State of Nevada, Appellant, v. Charles E. OTTO; V Park, LLC; Maryanne Ingemanson; Todd Lowe; and The Village League To Save Incline Assets, Inc., Respondents. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Richard A. Gammick, District Attorney, and David C. Creekman, Chief Deputy District Attorney, Washoe County, for Appellant.
Morris Peterson and Suellen E. Fulstone, Reno, for Respondents.
BEFORE THE COURT EN BANC.1
In this appeal, we examine the Nevada Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requirement that a petitioner name, as respondents to a petition for judicial review of an administrative decision, “all parties of record.” NRS 233B.130(2)(a). Because the APA grants the district court special statutory jurisdiction to review an administrative decision, we conclude that a party must strictly comply with the APA naming requirement as a prerequisite to invoking the district court's jurisdiction. Thus, when a petitioner fails to name in its petition each party of record to the underlying administrative proceedings, the petition is jurisdictionally defective and must be dismissed. Further, if the petitioner fails to invoke the district court's jurisdiction by naming the proper parties within the statutory time limit, the petition may not subsequently be amended to cure the jurisdictional defect.
In March 2006, the Washoe County Board of Equalization adjusted the property tax values of approximately 300 Incline Village and Crystal Bay taxpayers based on a determination that those properties' taxable values had been improperly assessed. Thereafter, “the County Board determined that by rolling back the 300 properties' taxable values, it had created an unequal rate of taxation for the 2006–2007 tax year.” Village League v. State, Bd. of Equalization, 124 Nev. 1079, 1082, 194 P.3d 1254, 1257 (2008). “Accordingly, under its regulatory duty to ‘seek to equalize taxable valuation within ... the whole county,’ the County Board rolled back the taxable values for the approximately 8,700 other properties in the Incline Village and Crystal Bay areas.” Id. at 1082–83, 194 P.3d at 1257 (alteration in original) (quoting NAC 361.624). The Washoe County Assessor administratively appealed the equalization decision to the State Board of Equalization, but the State Board did not immediately consider the appeal because this court had imposed a stay temporarily enjoining the rollbacks pending a decision in a related appeal concerning the assessment methods. Id. at 1083, 194 P.3d at 1257. After further litigation and at the taxpayers' request, this court in 2008 directed the State Board to hear the Assessor's appeal. Id. at 1091, 194 P.3d at 1262–63.
The State Board then scheduled a hearing on the Assessor's appeal for June 10, 2009. At that time, the Assessor was named as the appellant and the County Board was named as the respondent, and the State Board provided notice of the June 10 hearing only to them. Notably, at that point, neither Washoe County nor the Incline Village and Crystal Bay taxpayers were named as parties to the State Board proceedings. Washoe County filed a motion to intervene with the State Board, arguing that it had a substantial interest in the outcome. The day before the hearing, taxpayers, many of whom were represented by Suellen Fulstone,2 objected to being excluded as parties to the equalization appeal before the State Board and sought an emergency stay to postpone the hearing. The taxpayers argued that they were improperly excluded as respondents and that the record was deficient because it did not include information about the 300 individual taxpayers who previously obtained rollbacks.
At the hearing, Fulstone, as well as David Creekman, counsel to the Assessor and Washoe County, discussed the party status of the taxpayers with the State Board. Creekman agreed with Fulstone that this court “could[ not] have been any clearer in its characterization of the 8700 [taxpayers] as [r]espondents in [the] case,” and that “they should be named as [r]espondents.” At least in part because of the confusion as to whether the taxpayers were proper respondents, and because the majority of taxpayers present supported a motion to continue the case,3 the State Board continued the hearing on the Assessor's appeal.
Later that month, the State Board re-noticed the hearing on the Assessor's appeal for July 20, 2009, stating that any taxpayer could appear or be represented by counsel. The State Board then provided an agenda for the hearing, noting that if a taxpayer or representative was not present for the hearing, the State Board could, pursuant to NAC 361.708, proceed with the hearing, dismiss the proceeding with or without prejudice, or recess the hearing. Importantly, the State Board named the taxpayers as respondents to the proceeding in “Exhibit A” to its agenda, an exhibit that listed the names of all the taxpayers that would be affected by the Board's decision and which of those taxpayers were represented by counsel.
On July 20, the State Board considered the Assessor's appeal. At the hearing, Washoe County addressed its pending motion to intervene in the proceedings. It argued that any decision regarding equalization could impact its fiscal health and that, therefore, it should be added as a party to the proceeding. The State Board denied the motion, at least in part because it did not believe intervention would affect Washoe County's right as an aggrieved party to petition for judicial review of its decision. After the State Board ruled on Washoe County's motion, the Assessor made several objections to the taxpayers' involvement in the proceedings. Pertinent to this appeal, the Assessor argued that (1) The Village League to Save Incline Assets, Inc., did not have standing to appear on behalf of any of the taxpayers; 4 (2) any taxpayer not represented by counsel, absent from the State Board proceedings without an excuse, or represented by Village League should not be recognized as a party; and (3) none of the 300 taxpayers who previously obtained rollbacks should be recognized as parties.
Noting that “[e]very taxpayer ... could be affected by [the State Board's] decision, one way or [an] other,” the members of the State Board unanimously agreed that the taxpayers had standing, regardless of whether they were represented by counsel. Further, the State Board concluded that the 8,700 taxpayers “are absolutely included in this process,” and they voted unanimously to include those taxpayers in the proceedings, as well as the 300 taxpayers who had previously obtained rollbacks, explaining that “[no]body should be excluded.” They also agreed that Village League had standing. The parties then addressed the substantive issues, and the State Board decided to uphold the County Board's equalization determination “to roll back the 8700 taxpayers of Incline Village and Crystal Bay.”
On October 9, 2009, the State Board issued a written decision in which it upheld the County Board's equalization determination. The State Board's decision specified that “Certain Taxpayers” had appeared in the matter through counsel and referenced “Exhibit A” to its decision, which, like Exhibit A to the State Board's agenda, listed the names of all the individual taxpayers affected by the decision and indicated which of those taxpayers were represented at the hearing by counsel. The State Board also instructed “[t]he Washoe County Comptroller ... to certify the assessment roll of the county consistent with this decision, using Exhibit A as [a] list of Taxpayers that are affected by this Decision.”
NRS 233B.130(2)(c) requires petitions for judicial review to be filed within 30 days of the State Board's decision. On November 6, 2009, Washoe County filed a petition for judicial review of the State Board's decision, in which it named in the caption “Certain Taxpayers (Unidentified)” as respondents, and described them in the body of the petition as “unidentified ‘certain taxpayers' who were named as parties to the matter before the State Board....” Washoe County indicated that, although the State Board had identified the taxpayers in this manner, it was unclear, even from Exhibit A, who the individual taxpayers were. In the petition, Washoe County challenged the identification of the proper parties to the State Board appeal, in addition to challenging the substantive bases for the State Board's decision.
Two taxpayers listed in “Exhibit A” as affected by the decision, Charles E. Otto and V Park, LLC (collectively, Otto), filed a motion to dismiss Washoe County's petition for judicial review on two grounds: (1) Washoe County lacked standing under NRS 233B.130 to bring the petition because it was not a “party of record” to the State Board's proceeding, and (2) Washoe County did not name all of the parties of record to the administrative proceedings because it did not identify the taxpayers who were respondents before the State Board, naming only “Certain Taxpayers (Unidentified).” Washoe County opposed the motion on the grounds that it had standing and that it did not know which taxpayers to name because Fulstone had not identified exactly which taxpayers she represented.
In January 2010, the district court denied the motion to dismiss, reasoning that Washoe County had standing to petition for judicial review, that “technical derelictions do not generally preclude a party's right to review,” and that it would not dismiss the matter simply because Washoe County failed “to name in the petition all affected taxpayers.” Although the district court denied the motion to dismiss, it ordered Washoe County to name all of the affected taxpayers and serve them within 30 days, noting that Exhibit A attached to the State Board's decision included a list of taxpayers affected by the decision.
In February...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Bonnell v. Lawrence
-
Tate v. State Bd. of Medical Examiners
...Moreover, the extent of the court's jurisdiction is controlled by the statute conferring that jurisdiction. Washoe Cnty. v. Otto, –––Nev. ––––, ––––, 282 P.3d 719, 724 (2012). However, once a statute has conferred power, that power may not be unduly abridged, as the judiciary is tasked with......
-
Adelson v. Harris, Docket No. 13–4173–cv.
...that statutory period extendable by court “is, by its own terms, not a jurisdictional requirement”), with Washoe Cnty. v. Otto, ––– Nev. ––––, 282 P.3d 719, 725 n. 8 (2012) (stating that “[t]he absence of discretionary language in [the statute], by contrast, is significant” to court determi......
-
Adelson v. Harris
...that statutory period extendable by court “is, by its own terms, not a jurisdictional requirement”), with Washoe Cnty. v. Otto, ––– Nev. ––––, 282 P.3d 719, 725 n. 8 (2012) (stating that “[t]he absence of discretionary language in [the statute], by contrast, is significant” to court determi......