Betty L. Green Living Trust v. Morrill Cty. Bd. of Equal.
911 N.W.2d 551
Neb.2018Background
- Trusts owned five grassland parcels in Morrill County; assessor set 2016 assessed values totaling $760,245, Trusts sought $444,742. Board of Equalization upheld assessor; Trusts appealed to TERC which affirmed.
- Central dispute: whether PAD-assigned land capability groups (LCGs) for grassland were flawed and whether that flaw produced incorrect or grossly excessive assessments.
- Trusts relied on trustee Gerald W. Green: argued LCG assignments did not correlate with NRCS forage production ratings and proposed valuing land by $/AUM (animal unit month) based on comparable sales.
- Assessor used PAD-required LCG classifications and a sales-comparison mass appraisal approach, considering multiple factors (e.g., rocky/rough terrain) beyond forage productivity.
- TERC found Trusts showed possible flaws in PAD LCG assignments but concluded Trusts failed to present competent, clear-and-convincing evidence that those flaws produced incorrect or grossly excessive valuations or a systematic failure by the Board.
- Supreme Court affirmed: TERC applied correct standards, Trusts’ $/AUM method was not shown to be a professionally accepted mass appraisal method and did not rebut the statutory presumption favoring the Board.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of review | TERC misapplied §77‑5016(9) and improperly favored the Board | TERC applied statutory presumption correctly and evaluated whether Trusts produced competent evidence to rebut it | TERC used correct standard: first ask whether competent evidence rebutted presumption; here Trusts did not rebut |
| Sufficiency to rebut presumption | Green’s testimony and $/AUM valuations rebut presumption of Board’s correctness | Assessor used PAD rules and sales-comparison mass appraisal; Trusts’ method not a recognized mass appraisal | Trusts failed to present competent evidence to rebut presumption; presumption remained intact |
| Valuation methodology (use of AUM) | $/AUM based on comparable sales better measures grassland productivity and market value | $/AUM approach focused on single factor (productivity); Trusts did not use income approach/capitalize cash rent per AUM per regulation | $/AUM method not shown to be a professionally accepted mass appraisal method; inadmissible to overturn valuation |
| Arbitrary, capricious claim | Flawed PAD LCGs caused grossly excessive, arbitrary assessments | Even if PAD LCGs have flaws, assessor and Board followed law and used multiple market factors; no evidence of systematic will or plain duty failure | No clear-and-convincing evidence of arbitrariness; Board’s decision not arbitrary or unreasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- JQH La Vista Conf. Ctr. v. Sarpy Cty. Bd. of Equal., 285 Neb. 120 (2013) (explains rebuttable presumption and burden to prove valuations unreasonable)
- Platte River Crane Trust v. Hall Cty. Bd. of Equal., 298 Neb. 970 (2018) (TERC decisions reviewed for conformity to law, competent evidence, and absence of arbitrary action)
- Brenner v. Banner Cty. Bd. of Equal., 276 Neb. 275 (2008) (owner testimony admissible but must be competent to rebut presumption)
- US Ecology v. Boyd Cty. Bd. of Equal., 256 Neb. 7 (1999) (discusses presumption that board acted on sufficient competent evidence)