Weiss v. Chavers, 03-805.
| Decision Date | 03 June 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 03-805.,03-805. |
| Citation | 184 S.W.3d 437 |
| Parties | Richard WEISS, Director, Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration v. Mary CHAVERS, On Behalf of Herself and All Other Similarly Situated Persons. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Martha G. Hunt, Chief Counsel, Revenue Legal Counsel, Little Rock, for Appellant.
Rose Law Firm, by: Gary J. Garrett and Craig S. Lair, Little Rock, for Appellee.
On November 9, 1994, an illegal-exaction complaint was filed by William and Winnie Bolding, later joined by appellee, Mary Chavers, on behalf of all similarly-situated taxpayers against appellant, Richard Weiss, Director of the Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration. In their complaint, the Boldings and Ms. Chavers, who lived in Louisiana, and paid taxes in Arkansas, asserted that Ark.Code Ann. § 26-51-301 (Supp.1993) violated the United States Interstate Commerce Clause, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution.1 The challenged statutory provision permitted individuals who were residents of Arkansas for the entire tax year to use a reduced tax table in calculating their income taxes.
We have considered two previous appeals relating to this matter. The first appeal was an interlocutory appeal from the trial court's denial of a petition for class certification. See Carson v. Weiss, 333 Ark. 561, 972 S.W.2d 933 (1998). We reversed the trial court's denial on the basis that an illegal-exaction suit, pursuant to Article 16, section 13 of the Arkansas Constitution, is a class action "as a matter of law." Carson, supra. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings as a class action.
Upon remand, the trial court considered several motions for summary judgment and made numerous findings, including that the Department of Finance and Administration ("DF & A") had coerced the payment of taxes for the years of 1991, 1992, and 1993, as well as those levied for 1994, the year this litigation commenced.2 The trial court's ruling that the taxes were not voluntarily paid has not been reviewed by this court. Other issues, such as the creation of a refund account, have not yet been considered by this court.
On April 28, 2000, Ms. Chavers filed a "motion to complete judgement and application for approval of refund plan and appointment of refund administrator, approval of incentive award, and approval of fees and expenses of class counsel." In response to this motion the trial court: (1) outlined a method for taxpayer refunds; (2)appointed the Rose Law Firm to oversee the refund process; (3)denied Ms. Chavers's request for incentive pay; (4) concluded that there was a common fund whereby attorney's fees could be paid; and (5) awarded Ms. Chavers's attorney's fees "in the amount equal to twenty-eight percent of the final amount of money available for distribution to the taxpayers."
On December 4, 2001, a plan of distribution was entered by the trial court. The plan outlined the procedure to be followed for distributing the damages to the members of the class. The plan required that "if any taxpayer has not filed a claim three years after initial advertisement of the right to make a claim, then after the expiration of such three year period no additional claims will be accepted and the State of Arkansas will receive the individual portion of the final judgment payable to all taxpayers that did not file claims." The distribution plan was appealed to our court. See Fisher v. Chavers, 351 Ark. 318, 92 S.W.3d 30 (2002). We concluded that the plan was not a final order and dismissed the appeal. Id.
This appeal is from the final order and judgment entered on April 8, 2003. In that order, the trial court adopted its earlier findings and further concluded that Ark.Code Ann. § 26-51-301(d) violated the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution, and the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution. It is from this order that appellant and appellee appeal. Appellant raises four points for our consideration. After considering the issues, we conclude that the trial court erred in finding that the payment of taxes for the tax years 1991, 1992, and 1993 was coerced and we reverse the trial court's order. Appellee raises one point in a cross appeal for our consideration. Because we conclude that the trial court erred in awarding a refund of voluntarily paid taxes, we need not address appellee's cross appeal.
We note that this appeal is our first opportunity in this proceeding to consider the application of the common-law rule that taxes paid voluntarily may not be recovered in an illegal-exaction suit.
Appellant appeals from the trial court's order granting partial summary judgment to appellee. Both parties filed motions seeking summary judgment. We discussed the standard of review to be applied in cases in which both parties filed motions for summary judgment in McCutchen v. Patton, 340 Ark. 371, 10 S.W.3d 439 (2000). We wrote:
The parties filed opposing motions for summary judgment and thus, in essence, agreed that there are no material facts remaining. Summary judgment, therefore, was an entirely appropriate means for resolution of this case. As we have oft stated, summary judgment is to be granted by a trial court only when it is clear that there are no genuine issues of material fact to be litigated, and the party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Once the moving party has established a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, the opposing party must meet proof with proof and demonstrate the existence of a material issue of fact. The moving party is entitled to summary judgment if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Id. (internal citations omitted).
In his first point on appeal, appellant argues that the trial court erred when it found that the taxpayers involuntarily paid the alleged illegal taxes for the tax years of 1991, 1992, and 1993. Appellant also contends that the trial court erred when it refused to apply the voluntary-payment rule to appellee's illegal-exaction suit. We recognize that taxes paid after the filing of the illegal-exaction complaint are considered to have been involuntarily paid. See Elzea v. Perry, 340 Ark. 588, 12 S.W.3d 213 (2000). However, taxes paid before the filing of an illegal-exaction complaint are considered to have been voluntarily paid. We have consistently followed the common-law rule that prohibits the recovery of voluntarily-paid taxes, except where a recovery is authorized by a statute without regard to whether the payment is voluntary or compulsory. Elzea, supra. We have described the common-law rule as follows:
Where a party pays an illegal demand, with full knowledge of all the facts which render such demand illegal, without an immediate and urgent necessity therefor, or unless to release (not to avoid) his person or property from detention, or to prevent an immediate seizure of his person or property, such payment must be deemed voluntary and cannot be recovered back. And the fact that the party, at the time of making the payment, files a written protest, does not make the payment involuntary.
City of Little Rock v. Cash, 277 Ark. 494, 644 S.W.2d 229 (1982). We follow this rule even when an illegal-exaction claim is based on constitutional grounds. Elzea, supra.
In Mertz v. Pappas, 320 Ark. 368, 896 S.W.2d 593 (1995), we explained the rationale behind the voluntary-payment rule. Specifically, we explained:
When taxes are paid to a government they are deposited into that government's general revenues and ordinarily are spent within that tax year. However, when the government is put on notice that it may be required to refund those taxes, it can make the appropriate allowance for a possible refund. If we were to allow refunds for taxes voluntarily paid in previous years, it would jeopardize current and future governmental operations because current and future funds might be necessary for the refund.
Id. (internal citations omitted).
The general rule is that taxes paid before litigation commences are voluntary, while payments made after litigation has commenced are involuntary. Our case law suggests that another exception to the voluntary-payment rule may be sustained if the payments were made under coercion. Id. In Chapman & Dewey Land Co. v. Board, 172 Ark. 414, 288 S.W. 910 (1926), we discussed this exception:
The coercion which will render a payment of taxes involuntary must consist of some actual or threatened exercise of power possessed by the party exacting or receiving payment over the person or property from which the latter has no reasonable means of immediate relief except by making payment.
Id. We have applied this exception in several cases. See Paschal v. Munsey, 168 Ark. 58, 268 S.W. 849 (1925); White River Lumber Co. v. Elliott, 146 Ark. 551, 226 S.W. 164 (1920). The coercion in these cases was that of an immediate loss of property if the taxes were not paid.
Informed by these legal principles, we must now determine whether the taxpayers voluntarily paid their taxes prior to the filing of this illegal-exaction suit or whether the payments were made as a result of coercion. Appellee contends that she and the other taxpayers were coerced into paying the illegal taxes. Specifically, she argues that if she and the other taxpayers had refused to pay the unlawful taxes, DF & A could have used its statutory powers of enforcement and collection to compel the payments. Appellee argues that the potential use of such powers constituted coercion and rendered the payments involuntarily.
The trial court agreed with appellee's argument and in its order found:
In the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pilcher v. Suttle Equipment Co., 05-143.
...that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Weiss v. Chavers, 357 Ark. 607, 184 S.W.3d 437 (2004). On appellate review, we determine if summary judgment was appropriate based on whether the evidentiary items presented......
-
Warren Wholesale Co. v. McLane Co., Inc.
...the section 15 at issue in this case. In support of their argument to dismiss this appeal as moot, Appellees rely on Weiss v. Chavers, 357 Ark. 607, 184 S.W.3d 437 (2004), and Morgan v. Sparks, 258 Ark. 273, 523 S.W.2d 926 (1975), for the proposition that this court will not pass on the val......
-
Miles v. Craighead Cnty.
...the person or property from which the latter has not reasonable means of immediate relief except by making payment. Weiss v. Chavers , 357 Ark. 607, 184 S.W.3d 437 (2004). In Craighead County, those criminal defendants who accepted a plea agreement and were ordered to pay illegal fees paid ......
-
Bishop v. Bishop
...denying Dr. Bishop reimbursement for the car payments he made after he filed his motion for contempt. See, e.g., Weiss v. Chavers, 357 Ark. 607, 614, 184 S.W.3d 437, 441 (2004) (applying the voluntary-payment rule and its exceptions, and holding that taxes paid after the filing of the illeg......