879 N.W.2d 75
N.D.2016Background
- Plains Marketing, LP and Van Hook Crude Terminal, LLC owned three Mountrail County parcels with substantial improvements added between 2012 and 2013.
- County hired an appraiser; the assessor adopted higher 2013 valuations and mailed notices that increased each parcel’s assessment by ≥ $3,000 and ≥10% over 2012.
- County concedes it failed to provide the statutorily required pre-equalization notice; property owners appealed to the State Board of Equalization.
- The State Board reduced the 2013 assessments to the 2012 true and full values (citing the notice defect); owners paid 2013 taxes on those reduced values.
- The county auditor later issued "omitted property" assessment notices for 2013, increasing values by the same amounts the State Board had removed; the county board approved these omitted-property reassessments and denied abatement requests.
- The district court affirmed; the Supreme Court reviewed whether the omitted-property statutes authorize revaluation of previously assessed property to circumvent the State Board’s decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the county auditor may use the omitted-property statutes (ch. 57-14) to increase 2013 valuations after the State Board reduced those valuations due to a notice defect | Omitted-property statutes do not apply because the property (including improvements) was listed and assessed for 2013; the State Board’s reduction did not leave property unassessed and cannot be circumvented | Auditor properly used ch. 57-14 to correct an "omission" and recover the increased value removed by the State Board | Court held the auditor could not use omitted-property statutes to revalue previously assessed property or circumvent the State Board’s substantive 2013 valuations; reversal of county board and district court decisions |
| Whether the county board acted arbitrarily or unlawfully in applying omitted-property provisions after the State Board decision | The board misapplied law; its action revalued previously assessed property in violation of precedent | The board’s action was a reasonable correction to the assessment records under the auditor’s duties | Court held the board misapplied controlling law; statutory interpretation is reviewed de novo and the county’s approach was unlawful |
Key Cases Cited
- Fisher v. Golden Valley Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs, 226 N.W.2d 636 (N.D. 1975) (notice requirement for increases is jurisdictional; failure to give notice invalidates the increase)
- Mueller v. Mercer Cty., 60 N.W.2d 678 (N.D. 1953) (omitted-property relief applies only where an assessment component was actually omitted, not where previously assessed property is revalued)
- Golden Valley Cty. v. Greengard’s Estate, 284 N.W. 423 (N.D. 1938) (county may not treat previously assessed property as "omitted" to collect additional taxes by revaluation)
- Marshall Wells Co. v. Foster Cty., 231 N.W. 542 (N.D. 1930) (auditor lacked authority under omitted-property statutes to revalue property that had been previously assessed)
- Cridland v. North Dakota Workers Comp. Bureau, 571 N.W.2d 351 (N.D. 1997) (administrative res judicata principles regarding finality of administrative board determinations)