Loma Mariposa v. Santa Cruz
1 CA-TX 15-0007
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Nov 22, 2016Background
- Taxpayer (Loma Mariposa II, L.P.) owns LIHTC-restricted apartments; restrictions recorded in a LURA that reduce property rights and affect valuation.
- Taxpayer filed a statutory Notice of Claim under A.R.S. § 42-16254 alleging the Assessor failed to account for the LURA for tax years 2009–2012.
- The Assessor prepared a written response within 60 days but mailed it to the wrong address; Taxpayer did not receive it within the 60-day statutory period.
- Taxpayer sent a written demand to the Assessor and Board of Supervisors asserting that the Assessor’s failure to timely respond constituted consent and asking correction of the tax roll; the roll was not corrected.
- Taxpayer exhausted administrative remedies, sued in tax court, and obtained summary judgment holding that under § 42-16254(C) a failure to timely respond constitutes consent; County appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Assessor’s late mailed response constitutes consent under A.R.S. § 42-16254(C) | Failure to timely file a written response = statutory consent; Taxpayer entitled to roll correction | Assessor’s mailing (within period) sufficed; no consent occurred | Court: Mailing to wrong address is not timely filing; statutory language is plain — failure to timely file constitutes consent |
| Whether Taxpayer waived the statutory-consent claim by seeking review before the Board of Equalization | No waiver; Taxpayer demanded correction, pursued consent theory administratively and judicially | County: Taxpayer’s appeal to Board of Equalization waived any defect in procedure | Court: No waiver; Taxpayer did not intentionally relinquish the right and explicitly argued consent throughout |
| Whether denial of relief violated County’s due process rights | Taxpayer: not applicable — statutory consent controls regardless of later hearing | County: Taxpayer received hearing and full process when Assessor’s later response and Board hearing occurred | Court: Due process argument fails; availability of later hearing does not negate statutory consent triggered by untimely response |
| Whether excusable neglect or good-cause exception saves the County’s late response | Taxpayer: Arizona law does not recognize a good-cause exception absent statutory authority | County: Mailing error was excusable neglect and should excuse untimeliness | Court: Excusable neglect/good-cause exceptions not recognized for such administrative filing deadlines absent statute; argument fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Salt River Project Agric. Improvement & Power Dist. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 156 Ariz. 155 (App. 1988) (administrative filing mailed to wrong address is not timely)
- Stapert v. Ariz. Bd. of Psychologist Exam’rs, 210 Ariz. 177 (App. 2005) (no good‑cause exception for late administrative filing absent statutory authority)
- Walgreen Ariz. Drug Co. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, 209 Ariz. 71 (App. 2004) (standard of de novo review for tax court summary judgment appeals)
- Paging Network of Ariz., Inc. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, 193 Ariz. 96 (App. 1998) (courts interpret unambiguous statutes by their plain language)
- Ringier Am. v. State Dep’t of Revenue, 184 Ariz. 250 (App. 1995) (strict enforcement of filing deadlines in tax cases)
- Pesqueira v. Pima Cty. Assessor, 133 Ariz. 255 (App. 1982) (filing deadlines are jurisdictional in tax proceedings)
- Hormel v. Maricopa County, 224 Ariz. 454 (App. 2010) (distinguishing processes for disputed claims and agreements under § 42-16254)
- Am. Cont’l Life Ins. Co. v. Ranier Constr. Co., 125 Ariz. 53 (1980) (definition and standard for waiver as intentional relinquishment)