Burdess v. Washington Cty. Bd. of Equal.
298 Neb. 166
| Neb. | 2017Background
- William Burdess owned two agricultural parcels in Washington County with homesites and substantial "wasteland" acreage; parties stipulated the amount of wasteland on each parcel.
- Wasteland was assessed under Burdess’s election of "special valuation" at $290/acre (2013), $335/acre (2014), and $450/acre (2015–2016); each homesite was assessed at $41,000.
- Burdess protested to the Tax Equalization and Review Commission (TERC), arguing wasteland should be valued at $0/acre and that his homesite should be equalized to a nearby (½ mile) Sully property assessed at $27,000.
- At hearing, Burdess testified wasteland produced negligible income (mushroom hunting, occasional walnut sales); county assessor explained special valuation uses market analyses of arm’s-length agricultural sales (including sales in less-developed Burt County) and separate market areas within the county for homesites.
- TERC affirmed the county board’s valuations, finding Burdess failed to present clear and convincing evidence that wasteland value should be $0 or that the homesite should be equalized to the Sully property due to differing market areas and physical characteristics.
- Burdess appealed to the Nebraska Supreme Court, which reviewed the TERC decision for errors appearing on the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper valuation of wasteland under special valuation statutes | Wasteland is unsuitable for agriculture, so special value must be $0/acre | Special valuation is determined by market analysis of arm’s-length agricultural sales per Tax Commissioner rules; assessor used comparable sales | Court: TERC decision affirmed; competent evidence supports nonzero special valuation based on market sales analysis |
| Equalization of homesite acres compared to nearby Sully property | Homesite should be equalized to Sully because both are agricultural and only ½ mile apart | Properties lie in different market areas and have materially different terrain and flood characteristics; assessor used sales in same market area | Court: TERC decision affirmed; differences in market area and physical characteristics justify differing valuations |
Key Cases Cited
- Lozier Corp. v. Douglas Cty. Bd. of Equal., 285 Neb. 705 (standard of review for TERC decisions) (review for errors appearing on the record and de novo review of legal questions)