Williams v. Stanley Co.

• Decision Date: 17 December 1942
• Docket Number: 8557
• Citation: 69 S.D. 118,7 N.W.2d 148
• Parties: LEON A. WILLIAMS and LOUIS E. BELAND, Respondents, v. STANLEY COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, Appellant
• Court: South Dakota Supreme Court

69 SD 118, 7 NW2d 148 (1942)

LEON A. WILLIAMS and LOUIS E. BELAND, Respondents v STANLEY COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, Appellant Appeal from Circuit Court, Stanley County, SD Hon. Boyd M. Benson, Judge #8557—Affirmed F. W. Lambert, Fort Pierre, SD Leo A. Temmey, Huron, SD Charles P. Warren, Pierre, SD Attorneys for Appellant. J. F. Callahan, Fort Pierre, SD Byron S. Payne, Pierre, SD Attorney for Respondents. Opinion filed Dec 17, 1942

SICKEL, Circuit Judge.

Leon A. Williams and Louis E. Beland are the owners of 8572 acres of land in Stanley County. They petitioned the County Board of Equalization for a reduction in the valuation of their 1940 assessment on this land. This petition was denied by the Board and the owners then appealed to the Circuit Court. The action was tried de novo. Findings and judgment were entered reducing the assessed valuation of the land, and from that judgment the county has appealed to this court.

The county admits that the valuation of the land in question by the assessment officers at $3.21 per acre exceeded its actual value, and does not dispute that $1.63 per acre was its actual value. The county claims, however, that no reduction in value was necessary to effect uniformity as to this land and other property of the same class; that the owners were not injured by the assessed valuation placed on the land by the assessment officers, and that therefore the court was without jurisdiction or authority of law to reduce the assessment to actual value.

The owners of the land admit that the assessment of $3.21 per acre was uniform with other property of the same class, but claim that they were entitled to have their assessment reduced to actual value, regardless of any question of uniformity that they were injured by the excess valuation to the extent that their taxes were increased thereby, and that the court was authorized by law to reduce the assessment to actual value. The trial court entered judgment reducing the assessed valuation from $3.21 per acre to $1.63 per acre, and this judgment has been assigned as error by appellant.

Article XI, section 2, of the State Constitution provides that “the valuation of property for taxation purposes shall never exceed the actual value thereof.”

Section 57.0407 of the code provides: ” [The County Board of Equalization] shall reduce the valuation of each tract or lot, which in its opinion is returned above its true and full value, to such price and sum as it believes to be the true and full value thereof.”

These provisions of the Constitution and of the statute establish the right to an assessed valuation which does not exceed the actual value of the property taxed, and when excessive valuation has been shown the owner is entitled to relief though there is no proof that a reduction is necessary to effect uniformity with other property of the same class. Hanson v. Local Board of Review, Iowa, 4 NW2d 384; Des Moines Gas Co. v. Saverude, 190 Iowa 165, 180 N. W. 193; Lyons v. Board of Equalization, 102 Iowa 1, 70 NW 711; In re Assessment of Osage & Okl. Gas Co., 35 Okl. 154, 128 P. 692; Underwood Typewriter Co. v. City of Hartford, 99 Conn. 329, 122 A 91.

The case of Hanson v. Local Board, supra, was an appeal from the Board of Review to the District Court. The issue was whether the assessed values were excessive. The statute required that assessments be based on actual value, and the court said: “The question with which we are con'ronted is substantially this: Should the court interfere with assessed values fixed by the assessor and confirmed by the local board of review merely because they are excessive, when it appears that they are not discriminatory or inequitable as compared with the assessed values of similar property in the same taxing district? We answer in the affirmative.”

In Des Moines Gas Co. v. Saverude, supra, the court considered an appeal to the District Court from a decision of the Board of Review refusing to reduce an assessment. The only issue before the Board or before the court was the value of the property. The opinion states [190 Iowa 165, 180 NW 195]: “We have held that on appeal to the disbrict court it is the duty of the court to do that which it was claimed the board failed to do; that is, make a just and equitable assessment. On appeal the court becomes the assessing tribunal, which is clothed with authority to determine anew the sum in which the taxpayer is to be assessed. By the appeal the assessment by the board of review is superseded, and the assessment again made by the court.” (Cases cited.)

In the case of Lyons v. Board of Equalization, supra, the property owner appealed from the Board of Equalization to the District Court. The issue was the valuation of plaintiff’s property for assessment purposes. It was held that the court, “Was in no way bound, affected, or precluded by the assessment made by the board of equalization. It was not sitting as a court for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not the board had honestly performed its duties according to its best judgment. The district court in such cases acts independently of, and without reference to the action of, the board. ... These cases are triable de novo.”

In Underwood Typewriter Co. v. City of Hartford, supra, the appeal was from the taxing board to the Superior Court. The Supreme Court referred to the statutory requirement that all property shall be assessed at its present true and actual valuation, and said that this provision, “Is plain and its meaning is unmistakable, and the provision is mandatory and unavoidable. For the purpose of taxation no valuation of any taxable property except its ‘present true and actual valuation’ is legal, and no taxation is valid which does not strictly comply with the law.” [99 Conn. 329, 122 A. 93.]

The county also claims that the judgment of the Circuit Court is void because it reduces the assessment on the land below that of other property of the same class and says that this is a violation of the provisions of section 57.0406 of the code. That section prohibits the Board of Equalization from creating...