Wright v. Collector and Treasurer of Arlington

• Decision Date: 16 April 1996
• Citation: 663 N.E.2d 572,422 Mass. 455
• Parties: Susan J. WRIGHT v. COLLECTOR AND TREASURER OF ARLINGTON.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

Page 572

663 N.E.2d 572

422 Mass. 455

Susan J. WRIGHT v. COLLECTOR AND TREASURER OF ARLINGTON.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Middlesex.

Argued Jan. 12, 1996.

Decided April 16, 1996.

CIVIL ACTION commenced in the Superior Court Department on December 16, 1992.

The case was heard by Barbara A. Lenk, J., on motions for summary judgment.

The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative transferred the case from the Appeals Court.

John F. Maher, Arlington, for defendant.

Stanley N. Wallerstein, Boston, for plaintiff.

Scott Harshbarger, Attorney General, and Harry M. Grossman & Bruce H. Stanford, Special Assistant Attorneys General, for Department of Revenue, amicus curiae, submitted a brief.

Before LIACOS, C.J., and LYNCH, O'CONNOR and FRIED, JJ.

LYNCH, Justice.

This is an appeal by the defendant, the collector and treasurer of Arlington, from the allowance of partial summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Susan J. Wright. The complaint sought a declaration that the defendant violated the provisions of G.L. c. 60A, § 2A (1994 ed.), and the plaintiff's due process and equal protection rights in attempting to collect an excise levied against her. The judge granted partial summary judgment for the plaintiff, ruling that the defendant had not complied with the statute. We transferred the case here on our own motion and now affirm.

We briefly summarize the facts. On August 14, 1992, the defendant mailed to the plaintiff an excise bill in the amount of five dollars. After the plaintiff failed to pay the bill, the defendant mailed to her a "demand for payment" and added a five-dollar demand fee. The plaintiff again failed to pay the bill and on October 7, 1992, the defendant mailed to the plaintiff a "notice of warrant" and charged the plaintiff an additional five-dollar warrant fee, a nine-dollar notice of warrant fee, and five cents in interest. No warrant was ever issued or served on the plaintiff. Approximately two months later, the defendant mailed to the plaintiff a notice which indicated that the registry of motor vehicles would not renew her registration and license unless all monies owed were paid and added a "nonrenewal" fee of twenty dollars to the plaintiff's bill.

General Laws c. 60A, § 2A, sets forth the procedures for collection of delinquent tax payments and the conditions under which a tax collection authority may notify the registry of motor vehicles to mark a license for nonrenewal. The statute provides in pertinent part:

"If an excise ... remains unpaid for fourteen days after a demand therefor made more than one day after such excise becomes due and payable, and if the local tax collector or commissioner of revenue elects to utilize the services of a deputy collector, then said deputy collector or the local tax collector or commissioner of revenue, as the case may be, shall send a notice of warrant to the delinquent taxpayer. In the event that the delinquent taxpayer does not respond within thirty days to said notice of warrant then a service warrant shall be made. If the tax remains unpaid after the service of warrant then the deputy collector may ... return the uncollected warrants ... to the local tax collector...." (Emphasis added.)

The judge ruled that G.L. c. 60, § 15 (1994 ed.), allows the collecting authority to charge additional fees at each step of the collection process as follows:

"1. For interest, as provided by law;

"2. For each written demand provided by law, five dollars;

"...

"9. For the issuance and delivery of a warrant to an officer, five dollars;

"10. For notice by mail or other means to the delinquent that a warrant to collect has been issued, nine dollars;

"11. For exhibiting a warrant to collect or delivering a copy thereof to the delinquent ..., fourteen...