Werner v. Riebe

• Decision Date: 11 February 1941
• Docket Number: No. 6720.,6720.
• Citation: 296 N.W. 422,70 N.D. 533
• Parties: WERNER v. RIEBE et al. (STATE et al., Interveners).
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

70 N.D. 533

296 N.W. 422

WERNER

v.RIEBE et al. (STATE et al., Interveners).

No. 6720.

Supreme Court of North Dakota.

Jan. 29, 1941.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 11, 1941.

On Petition for Rehearing.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Chapter 225, Session Laws N.D.1939, fixes the full and true value of property in money as the standard by which the validity of alleged excessive assessments shall be determined.

2. The fact that taxable property is overassessed at the time a public debt is created does not vest in the holder of evidences of such debt a right to insist that property subject to taxation for the payment thereof continue to be overassessed; nor does a statute which affords relief from overassessment by reducing the valid tax charges to those based upon the true value of the property in money deprive the holders of such evidences of debt of their property without due process of law.

3. Chapter 225, Session Laws N.D.1939, affords equal opportunity to property owners to have the valuations of their property fixed on the basis of the full and true value of that property in money, and is, therefore, nondiscriminatory and not violative of Section 176 of the North Dakota Constitution which requires uniformity in taxation.

4. Chapter 225, Session Laws N.D.1939, does not afford relief until the assessment process has been completed and a final determination of values made by the assessing authorities, and does not violate the requirement of Section 179 of the constitution that property be assessed in the county, city, township, village, or district in which it is situated.

5. Chapter 225, Session Laws N.D.1939, does not relinquish or extinguish any indebtedness to the state or a municipal corporation therein, and is, therefore, not violative of paragraph 27, Section 69 of the constitution.

6. Chapter 225, Session Laws N.D.1939, does not violate the requirement of Section 179 of the North Dakota Constitution that certain taxable property be assessed in the county, city, township, village or district in which it is situated.

Appeal from District Court, Stutsman County; Fred Jansonius, Judge.

Proceeding by R. A. Werner against Hugo A. Riebe and others, constituting the Board of County Commissioners of Stutsman County, and others to secure a reduction in the assessed valuation of his lands to the full and true value thereof in money and to secure an abatement of all taxes levied thereon for the year 1939, based upon assessments in excess of the full and true value, wherein the State of North Dakota, doing business as the Bank of North Dakota, and C. D. Drawz intervened. From an adverse judgment, the defendants and the interveners appeal.

Judgment affirmed.C. F. Kelsch, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendants-appellants.

Robert Birdzell, of Bismarck, for intervener-appellant State, doing business as Bank of North Dakota.

Russell D. Chase, of Jamestown, for intervener-appellant C. D. Drawz.

Knauf & Knauf, of Jamestown, for plaintiff-respondent.

MORRIS, Judge.

R. A. Werner, the petitioner herein, is the owner of nine tracts of land in Stutsman County. He brought these proceedings pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 225, Session Laws N.D.1939, to secure a reduction in the assessed valuation of his lands to the full and true value thereof in money; and to secure an abatement of all taxes levied thereon for the year 1939, based upon those portions of assessments in excess of the full and true value.

Upon a hearing of the petition to cut assessed valuations and abate the taxes, the county commissioners of Stutsman County denied the petitioner relief. He thereupon appealed to the district court. In that court the State of North Dakota, doing business as the Bank of North Dakota, intervened. It claimed an interest in the proceeding by virtue of the fact that it is the owner and holder of certificates of indebtedness issued by the State of North Dakota under the provisions of Chapter 183, Session Laws N.D. 1937, and is also the owner of Capitol Building Fund certificates issued pursuant to Section 14, Chapter 205, Session Laws N.D.1931.

One C. D. Drawz also intervened as a citizen and taxpayer of Stutsman County who has paid all of his taxes levied and assessed for the year 1939. He owns a half section of land in a township other than that in which the petitioner's lands are located. He is also the owner and holder of certain township bonds issued by one of the townships of Stutsman County. The defendants, consisting of the members of the Board of County Commissioners and the County Treasurer of Stutsman County, filed their answers in the district court, setting forth that the petitioner's property was assessed and valued by the local assessor according to the same standards of value as that used in assessing the property of other taxpayers of the same taxing district, and that the assessment was duly reviewed and equalized by the local boards of review and boards of equalization; and that the valuation thus arrived at is fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory when considered in relation to the valuation of like property in Stutsman County.

The defendants further set forth that the county has issued $180,000 in negotiable bonds pursuant to law and has provided for the collection of an annual irrepealable tax sufficient to pay the principal and interest thereon in accordance with the provisions of Section 184 of the State Constitution, and that if reductions in assessments are made as prayed for by the petitioner, such reductions will result in creating a deficiency in sinking funds of the county and will impair the ability of the county to pay its constitutional obligations. The answer further sets out that if Chapter 225, Session Laws N.D.1939, is construed to entitle the petitioner to a redetermination of the full and true value of his property for the purposes of taxation without reference to the valuations of other properties similarly situated and without reference to the valuation of real property as equalized by the State Board of Equalization, the result will be violative of the uniformity requirement of Section 176 of the State Constitution.

The defendants contend that Chapter 225, Session Laws N.D.1939, can and should be construed to apply only to cases of discriminatory valuations and then only to the extent of bringing about uniformity and equality. They also contend that if the Chapter in question is held applicable to all excessive valuations of property without regard to any discrimination and without reference to like property similarly situated, it is violative of Section 176 of the constitution, and void. The intervener, State of North Dakota, doing business as the Bank of North Dakota, contends that the act in question will deprive the intervener of its property without due process of law in violation of Section 13 and will impair the obligations of the intervener's contracts with the taxing districts in violation of Section 16 of the State Constitution.

The intervener, Drawz, contends that the act violates Sections 13, 16, and 176 of the State Constitution. He also asserts that the act violates subdivision 27 of Section 69, which prohibits the passage of special laws by the legislature, relinquishing, or extinguishing the indebtedness of any person or corporation to the state or any municipal corporation therein. It is claimed that the act is violative of the requirement of Section 179 of the constitution to the effect that all taxable property be assessed in the county, city, township, village, or district in which it is situated.

Chapter 225, Session Laws N.D.1939, provides that,

Ҥ 1. Taxes Based on Valuations in Excess of Full and True Value Void.) Any and all taxes levied and assessed against taxable property valued by local assessors, to the extent that said tax charges exceed the amount that said tax charge would have been had the original final determination of value been limited to the full and true value thereof in money, shall be null and void.

§ 2. Who May Object. Consideration of Application.) Each individual property owner, and each person having an interest in taxable property valued by local assessors, either individually, or jointly, or collectively, including taxing districts as such, may within one year after any assessment becomes final, bring such proceedings as are herein provided for, or as may be provided for by law, to determine and limit the tax obligations of such property as provided for in Section one hereof, and each such proceedings shall be by the board, commission, commissioners, or any person having jurisdiction thereof, and the courts, decided, determined, and the valid tax determined as to the application thereof to the specific property or properties involved in said proceeding or proceedings and without reference to county necessities, or other municipal requirements, and without reference to the valuation applied or tax obligations charged against other properties.”

Section 3 sets forth the procedure under which applications may be made and defines the duties of the board of county commissioners and the county treasurer. Section 4 provides that the failure of the petitioner to appear before any board of equalization or his failure to perform any other act shall not prejudice the petitioner's rights. Section 5 provides for an appeal to the district court where the matter is tried de novo. It is made the duty of the court “to fix and determine the proper and legal tax charges for any year or years as may be involved in said petition”. Section 6 provides for an appeal to the Supreme Court from any judgment of the district court.

[1] The statute in question has been before this court in two cases. Murray v. Mutschelknaus, N.D., 291 N.W. 118,State ex rel. Strutz v. Huber, 69 N.D. 788, 291 N.W. 126. In Murray v. Mutschelknaus, supra, we held the statute to be wholly prospective in its operation and for that reason not applicable to 1938 taxes. In State ex rel. Strutz v....