Washoe County v. John A. Dermody, Inc., 13328
| Decision Date | 31 August 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 13328,13328 |
| Citation | 668 P.2d 280,99 Nev. 608 |
| Parties | WASHOE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Nevada; the State Board of Equalization, an administrative agency of the State of Nevada; Jack J. Hunter, Jr., Chairman; Roland R. Zideck; William E. Mooney; Gary Kent; and Ron Gash, as Members of said Board, Appellants, v. JOHN A. DERMODY, INC., a Nevada corporation; G & M Properties, a partnership consisting of Geula Gail Moslin and Michael Craig Dermody; John A. Dermody, E. W. McKenzie as individuals, Respondents. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
This case presents a challenge to the district court' reversal of a decision of the Nevada State Board of Equalization (State Board) concerning the valuation and appraisal of certain real property and improvements. We conclude that the district court correctly found that the State Board's decision was clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the record, and decline to reverse that part of the district court's decision. See NRS 233B.140(5)(e). However, we also conclude that the district court erred in remanding the case to the State Board with overly specific instructions as to the valuation methods and procedures to be utilized in assessing the property in question.
Respondents (Dermody, Inc., et al.) are owners of a number of commercial and industrial properties located in Washoe County. In 1976, the Washoe County Assessor reassessed that section of the Reno-Sparks area in which respondents' property was located. In reassessing the property, the Assessor apparently utilized average replacement cost figures for comparable structures. The Assessor then applied a depreciation rate to the replacement cost which was based on estimated structure lives that ranged from 37 to 142 years. No explanation was apparently provided as to why the Assessor found it necessary or desirable to use such lengthy structure lives, although there is some evidence in the record that might support an inference that these figures were drawn from a commercial depreciation table.
Respondents appealed the reassessment to the Washoe County Board of Equalization (County Board). The Board granted partial relief, but both respondents and the Assessor appealed to appellant Nevada State Board of Equalization.
The State Board reviewed the valuations of the Assessor and the County Board. The State Board then undertook a valuation of respondents' property, apparently utilizing the same approach and methodology utilized by the Assessor. The State Board, however, rejected the 37 to 142-year structure lives applied by the Assessor, and instead calculated depreciation at 1% per year. This would equate to the application of a 100-year structure life, although it appears that the State Board arrived at this figure without discussion, explanation or evidentiary support.
Still dissatisfied with the valuation of their property, respondents sought judicial review of the State Board's decision. After reviewing the record, the district court found that the State Board's actions were arbitrary, capricious and clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the record. The court accordingly entered judgment in favor of respondents, remanding the case to the State Board with instructions that the State Board use a particular valuation advanced by respondents. This appeal followed.
The State Board initially argues that the district court erred in rendering judgment for respondents. This contention is without merit. Respondents appealed the decision of the State Board, an administrative agency, to the district court. It is well established that under such circumstances the district court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. See NRS 233B.140(5). At the same time, the district court may reverse or modify the decision of an administrative agency if substantial rights of an appellant have been prejudiced because the findings are clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole record. See NRS 233B.140(5)(e). Thus, the dispositive issue is whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support the State Board's use of a 100-year structure...
To continue reading
Request your trial