Hammons v. Weber County
2018 UT 16
| Utah | 2018Background
- Jesse and Alison Hammons lived in their Utah home since 2005 and received the residential property tax exemption in 2005–2006; county records listed a P.O. box as their address until 2008.
- In 2007 the county assessor reclassified the property as non-primary residence after noticing the P.O. box, and the Hammonses lost the residential exemption for tax year 2007.
- The Hammonses paid the 2007 taxes, updated their address in county records in August 2008, but still did not receive the exemption for 2008 and paid full taxes for that year as well.
- They completed a signed statement of primary residence in April 2009 and received the exemption for 2009; in 2012 they sought refunds or credits for alleged overpayments in 2007–2008, which the county denied.
- After administrative appeals failed, the Hammonses sued under Utah Code § 59-2-103 and § 59-2-103.5 and raised several tort and restitution claims; the district court entered judgment on the pleadings dismissing their claims, and they appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the assessor acted beyond authority by reclassifying the Hammonses’ property as non-primary residence | Reclassification was unlawful because assessor lacked authority to change exemption without BOE involvement | Assessor acted within administrative authority to reclassify based on records | Court: Not clearly established that assessor lacked authority; claim cannot fit narrow remedy under §1321 |
| Whether the county could require a signed statement of primary residence before an ordinance existed | County improperly required a signed statement pre-ordinance, making tax collection illegal | County acted within practice/authority; no clear rule forbidding the requirement pre-ordinance | Court: Law not clearly settled that county could not require statement; dispute is legal question outside §1321 relief |
| Whether Hammonses are entitled to refund/credit for allegedly erroneous/illegal 2007–2008 assessments under Utah Code §59-2-1321 | Taxes were illegally collected because exemption was removed and procedures were improper, so refunds/credits are owed | Relief under §1321 is limited to clear, readily apparent errors visible from county records; Hammonses cannot meet that standard | Court: §1321 relief is narrow; Hammonses failed to point to an error "readily apparent from county records" and cannot recover under §1321 |
| Whether §1321 requires only "sufficient evidence" or also the Woodbury "readily apparent" standard | Hammonses argue §1321 does not incorporate Woodbury’s heightened record-apparency requirement | County relies on Woodbury precedent requiring errors be readily apparent from county records | Court: Notes statutory text differs but declines to revisit Woodbury; applies Woodbury standard and affirms dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Woodbury Amsource, Inc. v. Salt Lake Cty., 73 P.3d 362 (explaining §59-2-1321 relief is narrow and requires errors be readily apparent from county records)
- Neilson v. San Pete Cty., 123 P. 334 (discussing limits on recovery of voluntarily paid taxes and standards for refund)
- Healthcare Servs. Grp., Inc. v. Utah Dep’t of Health, 40 P.3d 591 (standard of review for judgment on the pleadings)
- Harvey v. Cedar Hills City, 227 P.3d 256 (applying statute version in effect at time of events)