County of Douglas v. Nebraska Tax Equal. & Rev. Comm.
296 Neb. 501
| Neb. | 2017Background
- The Nebraska PTA prepared a sales-ratio report for Douglas County identifying three residential valuation subclasses (Areas 2, 3, and 4) with medians outside the statutory 92–100% acceptable range.
- PTA recommended increasing Areas 3 and 4 by 7% and recommended no change for Area 2 because quality statistics showed high dispersion and vertical inequity.
- At a TERC show-cause hearing, Douglas County’s chief field deputy (Baines) testified that county assessment practices (unverified sales, possible sales-chasing) made sales-file data unreliable and urged reappraisal rather than blanket adjustments.
- TERC voted to increase Areas 3 and 4 by 7% and decrease Area 2 by 8%. Douglas County then moved to reconsider, submitting an affidavit alleging the PTA used sales the county had marked non-arm’s-length and miscoded area assignments.
- TERC denied the motion to reconsider (2–1). The Nebraska Supreme Court granted bypass, reviewed the record, reversed as to Area 2, and affirmed in all other respects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether TERC’s 8% decrease to Area 2 was lawful and supported | County: decrease unsupported — data skewed by low-value sales, high COD and PRD show lack of uniformity; remedy is reappraisal not equalization | TERC/PTA: median > statutory range, adjustment appropriate to equalize | Reversed — decrease arbitrary/unreasonable and not supported by competent evidence (Area 2 suffers extreme dispersion and vertical inequity; equalization not an appropriate fix) |
| Whether TERC’s 7% increases to Areas 3 and 4 were lawful and supported | County: sales-file unreliability and assessment practice problems undermine PTA statistics | PTA/TERC: COD, PRD, and narrow 95% confidence intervals show medians are reliable indicators | Affirmed — increases supported by competent evidence and not arbitrary or unreasonable |
| Whether TERC abused discretion by denying motion to reconsider (introducing affidavit/new evidence) | County: motion raised that PTA improperly included non-arm’s-length sales and misallocated area sales; TERC should have reopened record | TERC: allegations could/should have been raised at hearing; affidavit fails to show impact on ratios or that state sales worksheets differed | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; county delayed presenting available evidence and did not show material impact |
| Whether PTA improperly included sales the county marked non-arm’s-length without required notice | County: AVU comparison shows state included sales county labeled nonusable and failed to provide 7-day notice of recategorization | PTA/TERC: AVU is not the vehicle for sale usability; county did not allege the sales worksheets (the required monthly vehicle) differed from PTA categorizations | Denied — county’s allegations were insufficient to establish misinclusion and did not demonstrate effect on ratios |
Key Cases Cited
- County of Douglas v. Nebraska Tax Equal. & Rev. Comm., 262 Neb. 578, 635 N.W.2d 413 (Neb. 2001) (discussing TERC equalization authority and standards)
- Douglas County v. Archie, 295 Neb. 674, 891 N.W.2d 93 (Neb. 2017) (procedural and review principles for TERC decisions)
- State v. Bao, 269 Neb. 127, 690 N.W.2d 618 (Neb. 2005) (abuse-of-discretion standard for motions to reconsider/new trial context)
- Ryder v. Ryder, 290 Neb. 648, 861 N.W.2d 449 (Neb. 2015) (standards for motions to vacate/amend judgments)
- State v. Bellamy, 264 Neb. 784, 652 N.W.2d 86 (Neb. 2002) (procedural guidance on reconsideration and post-judgment motions)