973 N.W.2d 415
N.D.2022Background:
- Hudye Group LP sought abatement/refund for assessed values on 85 acres (divided into 92 parcels) for tax years 2018 and 2019.
- Hudye mailed applications to the Minot City Assessor on Oct 28, 2020; the Assessor’s office received them Nov 2, 2020.
- On Nov 9 the City Assessor told Hudye to refile duplicate applications with the Ward County Auditor; Hudye mailed those on Nov 19 and the County Auditor received them Nov 20, 2020.
- The Minot City Council partially approved the 2019 requests and denied 2018 as untimely; the Ward County Board similarly denied the 2018 claim as not filed with the county auditor on or before Nov 1 as required by statute.
- Hudye appealed to the district court, which affirmed the Board; the Supreme Court affirmed, holding Hudye’s 2018 applications untimely.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness: whether Hudye’s application was "filed" timely | Receipt by Minot City Assessor on Nov 2 (first business day after Nov 1) should be treated as filed | Statute requires filing in the county auditor’s office on or before Nov 1; city assessor receipt is not sufficient | Held: Applications were not delivered to the county auditor by Nov 1 and therefore untimely; denial affirmed |
| Reasonableness/statutory interpretation: whether the Board’s denial was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable | Board’s strict deadline produced an unjust result and was unreasonable under circumstances | Board correctly interpreted unambiguous statute; review is limited and reversal only for arbitrary or incorrect statutory interpretation | Held: Statute unambiguous; "filed" means delivery to the officer charged with custody (county auditor); Board’s decision was a rational application of law and not arbitrary |
Key Cases Cited
- RFM-TREI Jefferson Apartments, LLC v. Stark Cty. Bd. of Comm’rs, 950 N.W.2d 160 (N.D. 2020) (standard for review of local governing body assessment decisions)
- Plains Mktg., LP v. Mountrail Cty. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs, 879 N.W.2d 75 (N.D. 2016) (a board’s failure to correctly interpret controlling law is arbitrary and unreasonable)
- Dakota Nw. Assocs. v. Burleigh Cty. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs, 616 N.W.2d 349 (N.D. 2000) (courts may not substitute their judgment for local governing bodies on valuation absent arbitrariness)
- Trollwood Vill. Ltd. P’ship v. Cass Cty. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs, 557 N.W.2d 732 (N.D. 1996) (applications received after Nov. 1 are untimely under N.D.C.C. § 57-23-04(1))
- Gullickson v. Stark Cty. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs, 474 N.W.2d 890 (N.D. 1991) (board’s statutory interpretation is fully reviewable)