DeVilbiss v. Matanuska-Susitna Borough
2015 Alas. LEXIS 104
| Alaska | 2015Background
- RSA expanded in 1981; DeVilbiss owns three parcels that joined RSA; his property abuts state-maintained Clark-Wolverine Road and he alleges no use of RSA roads.
- 2011: Borough Assembly denied removal petition; DeVilbiss filed suit challenging RSA taxes and statutory/constitutional grounds.
- Superior Court granted Borough summary judgment on (i) AS 29.35.450(c)(4) and (ii) RSA tax legality; some claims dismissed as non-justiciable.
- Court held AS 29.35.450(c)(4) does not mandate excluding property from RSA and that RSA tax is permissible.
- Court addressed whether taxes require special benefit and whether attorney’s fees were proper; affirmed summary judgment and fee award.
- DeVi lbiss appeals both the summary judgment and attorney’s fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does AS 29.35.450(c)(4) require excluding DeVilbiss’s property from RSA? | DeVilbiss argues exclusion mandated by statute. | Borough contends statute does not require exclusion. | No, statute does not compel exclusion. |
| Is RSA tax a lawful ad valorem tax, not a special assessment? | Tax is an illegal special assessment lacking benefit. | Tax is a permissible ad valorem levy. | Tax is permissible as ad valorem, not a special assessment. |
| Does Borough have authority to tax RSA residents for road services? | Authority is limited; additional voter approval required. | Authority exists under AS 29.35.470 and AS 29.45.010. | Borough has statutory authority to tax. |
| Must tax validity depend on receipt of a special benefit by taxpayer? | Tax invalid without special benefit to DeVilbiss. | No; benefits need not be individualized. | Tax validity does not depend on individual benefit. |
| Was attorney’s fees award proper under Rule 82 and AS 09.60.010? | Fees improperly awarded against constitutional claims. | Fees appropriate; DeVilbiss had economic incentive. | Fees upheld; DeVilbiss had sufficient incentive. |
Key Cases Cited
- Memphis & Charleston Ry. Co. v. Pace, 282 U.S. 241 (1931) (ad valorem taxes need not confer special benefit to be valid)
- Carmichael v. Southern Coal & Coke Co., 301 U.S. 495 (1937) (taxes distribute government burden, not benefit-specific)
- Fairbanks N. Star Borough v. College Utils. Corp., 689 P.2d 460 (Alaska 1984) (borrowing authority to levy taxes for services)
- City of St. Mary’s v. St. Mary’s Native Corp., 9 P.3d 1002 (Alaska 2000) (liberal construction of municipal taxing powers)