*1 sеverely. of much more See C.R.S. a false name and date identity by giving (2010) Theft). birth, thereby (Identity Although major- himself out to be held and purport com did not person, ity opinion may practical another we have little therefore phrase "false or fic prehensively cases, object define approach I to its effect future certainly never identity," titious and narrowly parsing the individual terms of so identity assuming a is false suggested that type that chosen only by giving of a false accomplished proscription conduct at which its is most having precedential no Apart from name. directly ultimately through aimed falls court, appeals' the court of value for this unregulated. I cracks and remains therefore Bauer, People v. demonstration respectfully dissent. (Colo.App.20083),that the defen I am authorized to state that RICE Justice "capaci a false in that case assumed dant join EID and Justice this dissent. commonly-ac ty," according to one term, similarly cepted definitions of the statutory term suggested that
never aspect to that of the defi
should be limited
nition, much it should be further less majori "legal" capacity, as the
restricted to
ty today. does Although precedential it also has no value JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF panel the court
for this a different EQUALIZATION, Petitioner found, twenty years ago, almost security appli that a number on а loan social v. requested a number of cation was but one of GERGANOFF, Mark W. Robin E. McIn identification, light of other items of tosh, Ap and Board of Assessment disclosures, giving a truthful false social peals, Respondents. security assuming number did not amount to Jones, identity. People false See No. 09SC916. (Colo.App.1992). Because the P.2d Colorado, Supreme Court of People not seek a of certiorari did writ En Banc. given oppor this court was not tunity holding directly. to review that Nov. might factually Whether or not it distin Rehearing Denied Nov. 2010.* guishable today, us I the case before decided, wrongly believe Jones was and un majority, expressly I
like the would overrule
it. Where the nature of transaction is such security
that a false social number is
merely single incidental is rather but
piece identifying upon data which the question depends,
fraud in it cannot be as merely many pieces
sessed as "one of
identifying Maj. op. at 925. information." purposes
For transaction at fraudulent
issue, clearly assumption of a false or is identity.
fictitious relatively Impersonation
Criminal is a mi-
nor, Using personal identi- inchoate offense.
fying security num- information like a social authority
ber without credit now obtain expressly punished
treated much more * Martinez, grant Justice and Justice Eid would the Petition. Justice Coats *2 Wakeman, County
Ellen G. Jefferson At- Butler, torney, County Eric T. At- Assistant Colorado, Golden, torney, Attorneys for Peti- tioner. Golden, Colorado, Gerganoff, pro
Mark W. attorney Respondent se and for Robin E. Melntosh. appearance by
No or on behalf of Board of Appeals. Assessment County Ingalls, Douglas Lance J. Attor- Dunnaway, ney, Kelly Deputy Douglas Coun- Clark, Attorney, ty Robert D. Senior Assis- Whisler, County Attorney, tant Michelle B. County Attorney, Senior Assistant Castle Rock, CO, Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Douglas County. Hoyt, County
H. Attor- Lawrence Boulder ney, Kоertje, County Michael A. Assistant Boulder, Colorado, Attorney, Attorneys for County Curiae Boulder Board of Amicus Equalization. Feola, LLC, Hoban, T.
Hoban & Robert Denver, Colorado, Attorneys Esq., for Amici Butler, Barry, Jaki Jim Dan Ed- Curiae Melntosh, wards, OPLLC, Jamie and Kim STP, Quinlan, Jeff and SH. Schroeder, County Kathryn Arapahoe At- torney, George Rosenberg, County Assistant Attorney, Meng, County Breena N. Assistant Littleton, Colorado, Attorneys Attorney, County Arapahoe Amicus Curiae Board of Equalization. Fine, City Attorney, City and
David R. Denver, Cooke, County Assistant David V. Section, City Attorney, Municipal Operations Colorado, Denver, Attorneys for Amicus Cu- riage City County of Denver. (2009). require MULLARKEY delivered Subsection does Justice Chief the BAA to award it. cases before Opinion of the Court. I. Introduction Analysis III. *3 Gerganoff in granted certiorari We turning interpretation Before to of subsec- Appeals, P.3d 395 Board Assessment of 109(1), begin with a review of the whether, upon sus- (Colo.App.2009), to decide appeal process. BAA taxpayer's appeal of a taining part in coun- valuation, ty's property the state's Board of Appeals A. the to Board of (the "Board") Appeals "BAA" or Assessment Appeals Assessment taxpayer to the his or her required award taxpayer property A with a tax dissatisfied bringing appeal. costs incurred the We valuation of his or her residence has several BAA to hold that the has the discretion begin process, avenues of review. To costs, judgment of award and we reverse taxpayer object protest must and to the as- appeals. of the court (2010). 39-5-122, § sessor. If the C.RS. objection protest, assessor denies the and History II Facts and Procedural taxpayer may appeal county then to the losing appeal After their to the Jefferson 89-5-122(8); equalization. §§ board of 39-8- (the "County" County Equalization Board of (2010). 106, 107, county If C.R.S. "BOE") regarding or the assessor's 2007 val- equalization petition of denies the in whole or home, property uation of their married own- part, taxpayer options has three for Gerganoff ers Mark and Robin Melntosh appeal additional review: to the district court (the "Taxpayers") appealed to the BAA. The novo, dispute for trial de submit to appeal part by Board sustained their or- arbitration, or, binding Taxpayers as the dering a reduction in the valuation of here, appeal hearing. chose to the BAA for a home, Taxpayers' although not to the amount (2010). 89-8-108(1), § C.R.S. Taxpayers initially requested. had The Board, comprised real licensed es- Taxpayers thereby were entitled to a reduc- appraisers experienced property tate valu- taxes, property accordingly tion in and taxation, quasi-judicial ation and is a tribunal overpaid. refund of taxes Department within the Colorado of Local decision, Following Taxpay the BAA property Affairs that appeals hears tax requested ers that the Board award them the county equalization. decisions of boards they in hiring expert ap incurred an 39-2-128(1)-(2), 125(1)(c), (2010). §§ C.R.S. praiser appeal. summarily BAA for hearing, taxpayer may At a BAA appear on request, request denied the as well as a for represented by his or her own behalf or be findings supporting written thе denial of attorney § or other individual. 39-2- costs, Taxpayers appealed to the (2010). 127(4), A BAA hearing C.R.S. is not appeals. Concluding court of the BAA judicial hearing, although a formal it has required pursuant was to award costs to aspects judicial proceeding, some of a includ- 39-8-109(1), (2009), section C.R.S. but ing presentation testimony of witness and properly the BAA have exercised its exhibits, opening closing as well as state- discretion award zero dollars generally ments. See BAA Procedures of appeals division court reversed and Review, Practice and Procedures of 8 Colo. remanded the BAA case for reconsid (2010) ("BAA Rulеs"); Regs. § Code Gerganoff, 222 eration. P.3d at 397. The Taxpayers, http://dola. BAA Instructions for County subsequently petitioned this court for (last colorado.gov/baa/instruct.htm visited review.1 2010). hearing, November After the appeals We conclude the court of mis- BAA renders a written BAA Rule decision. 39-8-109(1), interpreted section If CRS. the decision of the BAA is granted following taxpayers 1. We certiorari on issue: award costs to whose is sus- 39-8-109, (2008), part. tained in Whether section C.R.S. re- quires Appeals the Board of Assessment (Colo.1989). Thus, our may appeal to the taxpayer taxpayer, consistent, harmo interpretation give should § CRS. court (2010). nious, parts all of а and sensible effect to Ct., P.2d at 921. Dist. statute. in valua achieves a reduction If a he or she must appeal process, by looking express begin tion in the We steps statute, construing set forth into motion words then set 39-8-109(1) obtaining according grammar a refund and com phrases section 39-8-109(1) (2010). Id.; 24-101, § overpaid. usage. § See C.R.S. or she mon taxes he (entitled ap strictly Additionally, of assessment in this we must "Effects of board decision"). provision Once construe the at issue. court peals district *4 (2010) ("[The of arti county provisions assessor with said provides the C.R.S. taxpayer strictly through 18 of title shall be [1 39] cles case, which set in the all relevant decisions value, county property construed."). the If, the modified forth after of the statute's review to the the statute is this documentation we conclude forwards assessor county unambiguous appears treasurer and the intent with county Id. The treasurer. analysis taxpayer appropriate certainty, our is com to the the reasonable then refunds C%, 718P.2d at 921. plete. Dist. which, prior to the 2010 money, sum of 109(1), included the of amendment subsection However, ambigu a statute is where by may be fixed" appeal of the BAA "as costs ous, employ interpretational we additional amendment, subsec BAA2 Id. Prior to "selecting among aids to assist with reаson 109(1) pay required to also particular lan interpretations able of the by county's may "as by legislature." Pac. guage chosen Union BAA, county prevails in the event (Colo. Martin, 185, P.3d 188 R.R. Co. v. 209 upheld. is the assessed valuation 2009). ambiguous A is when it "is statute by reasonably capable being of understood Statutory Interpretation B. Rules of persons in two or more differ well-informed questions of statu We review de novo Singer 2A Norman & ent senses." J. J.D. People, 211 interpretation. Dubois v. tory Singer, Statutory Sutherland Con Shambie (Colo.2009). 41, Familiar rules of 48 2007) P.3d (7th 45:2, 18, § struction at 19 ed. guide analysis. our statutory interpretation (explaining of the words used that "some objects to several and the manner refer meaning determining the of In particular of their use does not disclose statute, is to ascertain and our central task refer"). object the words to which of the General As give effect to the intent case, Ct., 918, Relevant to this look for sembly. People v. Dist. (Colo.1986). at must language issue statutory history, expressions of guidance to legislative and in purpose in the constitution in the context of the statute as be read declarations, consequences par of a statutory context of the entire whole and the (2010). § 921; Kautzky, ticular construction. C.R.S. Bynum v. id. at scheme. See they assessing with response appeals' 2010. Nor do assist the court of decision 2. In to provision legislative we review intent behind amended section the General this Assembly Martin, 39-8-109(1). Hearing today. Pac. Co. v. on S.B. 10-138 See Union R. Before Gov't, Assemb., (Colo.2009) 185, ("Especially 2d Local 67th Gen. where H. Comm. on P.3d 188-89 23, 2010) ("House (Mar. Hearing") Reg. already undergone existing Sess. con- statute has Peniston). result, (statement Rep. authority, As a sub- by judicial a final further struction require to that the was amended necessarily section legislative reflects the amendment parties appeal construction, to the BAA or district court to an legislature's understanding of that appeal, responsible оn for their own costs be simply disagreement perhaps with how it is or removing language refunding about thus be) (or likely interpret- being fear of how it is 155, taxpayer. See Ch. sec. costs of can courts. Such an amendment ed other 1, Colo. Sess. Laws 533. change fairly presumed to intend a in the However, amending legislature be- only ap- apply law as the these law-the amendments judicial following construc- earlier lieves it to August peals after 2010. commenced on or nothing origi- implies virtually about apply tion-but Accordingly, they to this do not Id. sec. intent."). August legislative any appeal prior nal filed case or to 936§6 statute, statutory hеading interpretation of a al- tools of
Additionally, determine intent, legislative dispositive meaning. its though not determining legislative intent. See can aid The critical contained in the Olin, 761 P2d City Ouray v. 109(1): third sentence (Colo.1988) (finding helpful legis- the title of Upon presentation to the treasurer lation); 47:14, supra § at Singer, county copy assessor of order or ("Section headings ... the same func- serve judgment ap- of the board of assessment the title does for the tions for sections court, be, peals or as the case district generally should be accorded entire act and and, appealed, copies if the case has been treatment."). the same of all further decisions of the board of Finally, because this case involves costs court, district court of pursuit and involves the supreme modifying appeals, and entity, public certain foundational consider property, valuation for assessment of the analysis. general mat ations frame our As appellant, petitioner identified as the ter, direction, express legislative absent plaintiff judgment on the order or discretionary award of costs is a decision board of assessment or district adjudicating authority. made Cf. *5 appropri- shall forthwith receive the ("costs 54(d) C.R.C.P. shall be allоwed as of delinquent ate refund of taxes and interest prevailing party course to the unless the thereon, together with at refund interest directs"); court otherwise Archer v. Farmer delinquent the same rate as interest as ("We Co., (Colo.2004) 90 P.3d Bros. 228 have 39-10-104.5, specified in section a and re- 54(d)] interpreted to mean that [C.R.C.P. fund of costs in said court or board of may trial courts exercise their discretion to appeals, may be, assessment as the case (internal prevailing party." award costs to a including appellant's the fees of the wit- omitted)). quotation marks and citations nesses, by such amount as be fixed finding This to adherence of discretion the court or of express legislative partic absent direction is as the case be. ularly important where the costs are to be 89-8-109(1). § against government paid levied and out length At product 160 words in and as the funds, necessarily public implicating sensi repeated legislative amendments, this sen- budget funding tive and considerations. Cf. clarity. key tence is not model of verb 54(d) (emphasizing C.R.C.P. that "costs voice, phrase passive is written creat- Colorado, the state of its officers or actor, ing ambiguity as to the intended and agencies, imposed only be shall to the extent generally contradictory terms "shall" and law"); C., permitted by People v. Dist. 808 "may" appear both in the sentence. (Colo.1991) (addressing P.2d at fees, torney explaining and that an award "to Other than the two "as payable public implicates funds sen 109(1), statements subsection we find noth considerations, budget funding sitive and and statute, ing organic in the BAA's the Board's authority to intrude into these areas is rules, or the Colorado Administrative Proce lightly implied"). Equally important, we authority dure Act that mentions the Board's presume are directed statute that costs, to fix parties awards of have "[plublic any private interest is favored over (enumer § alerted us to none. See 39-2-125 (2010). 2-4-201(1)(e), § interest." C.R.S. BAA); Rules; ating the duties of the BAA (2010) § (listing C.R.S. actions 39-8-109(1) Interpretation § C. take, agency conducting hearing an can fees). However, appeals ap including attorney In this the court of award of plied plain language concluding review in it is reasonable to infer that the Board at 109(1) that implied subsection mandates a refund of least has incidental discretion Gerganoff, 222 ary authority doing costs. See P.3d at 897. How if award costs so ever, we find the holding quasi-judicial the statute furthers its duties in Ins., ambiguous, requiring hearings. resort to additional Hawes Colo. Div. 65 Cf. (Colo.2008)("[I]t (Colo.2002). ... well- P.3d P.3d While this is not true, possess implied always see Danielson v. Castle Mead agenсies established (Colo.1990) ows, Inc., be powers filling the interstices incidental effectuate their express powers tween (explaining legislative purpose if is not 24-4-105(4) mandates."); (permitting construction, permissive "may" fulfilled any action authorized agency to "take other mandatory), perceive is construed as we no article or with this by agency rule consistent "may" indication here that was intended to accordance, practicable, with to the extent obligation upon the BAA. impose new courts"). in the district procedure procedural If look to the scheme creat- 109(1) indi- text of subsection While the 109(1), еd it becomes clearer impose did not on cates that imposes obligation no on this sentence mandatory duty BAA a to award 109(1) the BAA. Subsection standardizes the interpretational application of the additional notifying the that a method for treasurer confirms that this is the available to us tools due, how much is due with what refund is interpretation. correct interest, amount of and to whom is due. process place This takes after the BAA has Express Language decision, and the BAA rendered its is no Statutory Scheme Additionally, longer typical involved. unlike at issue in the third precise clause fee-shifting provisions solely on whiсh focus appel- is: "the of subsection sentence award, the cost the focus here is almost ... forthwith receive [taxpayer] lant shall entirely something on other than cost inter- [with refund of taxes appropriate awards, namely process paying ..., court and a refund of costs said est] achieving to a after a valua- refund *6 appeals, as the case board of assessment adjustment. provision's heading be, including appellant's the fees of the may of board of supports our conclusion: "Effects witnesses, may by fixed in amount as be such appeals or district court deci- of assessment as the сourt or board sion." It makes little sense to assume that 89-8-109(1). § This may be." the case important duty legislature imposed the an on by long prepositional a preceded clause is procedural in the BAA and hid it within this the coun- describing documents phrase what post-BAA actions. scheme of county trea- ty present must assessor by subject "appellant" is followed surer. arguing express language of In that the phrase "shall forthwith re- passive the verb 109(1) the BAA to subsection mandates (1) ceive," objects, in turn has two which point Taxpayers to the last award (2) costs. tax refund with interest 109(1), provides which sentence of subsection phrases dеscriptive two associat- "Costs" has appeal, county prevails if at the BAA that appel- "including the fees of the ed with it: ap- county shall recover costs from the "the may "in amount as lant's witnesses" and such in pellant such amount as ... board of assessment fixed 89-8-109(1). They § contend that the BAA. appeals." a cost award to the this sentence mandates taxpayer and that prevailing county from the no obli imposes ... receive" "[Slhall here must be read to the sentence issue with gation the BAA. This sentence deals on taxpayer pre- have the same effect when money taxpayer, payment of to required if are to have vails. Even the two sentences only possible paying party is the effect, awarding costs the same the sentence phrase county Neither does the treasurer. shorter, simi- county, though much is to impose ... fixed [BAA]" "as from the same larly constructed and suffers on the Board to award costs. obligation merely interpretation we the au may be fixed" confusing attributes. The identifies "As as the give sentence must be the same amount, to one if there thority that the award sets There- matter, give to the other. "may" interpretation general any. As a is to be Ct., fore, final sentence in the reference to the 713 grant of discretion. Dist. denotes a Triantos, supports negates nor 922; neither People P.2d at see also producing the BAA to Taxpayers' contention must witnesses sustain the assess- paid by county. award them costs. ment shall be But on court, petition- to the district if the Statutory History judgment modifying obtain er the assess- ment, judgment he recover for his history legislative limited for the There is court, including costs such his witnesses' early legislative and revisions we enactments fees, judgment county, if be for the However, a review here. review enact- county peti- shall recover costs amendments shows ments and successive tioner. authority respect with to the BAA's been, awarding always has and re- costs statute, then, Id. This first iteration of the mains, discretionary. We learn costs permissive respect was with to the court's began prevailing taxpayer as a discretion- authority prevailing to award costs to a tax- court, ary decision of the district while costs payer, mandatory respect but with county mandatory. prevailing to a were In county. prevailing form, clear, its revised the statute is less but us, Relevant to the case now before any attempt there no evidence of to man- 1948, revised the statute re- prevailing date the award of costs to a tax- moving reрlacing without the active "treasur- payer. er leaving shall refund" but in the The source of subsection was first passive phrase requiring verb refund of in- adopted Initially, only proce- in 1902. terest. See Ch. see. appealing a an appeal dure for valuation was amended, Colo. Sess. Laws 500-01. As 94-A, to the district court. Ch. see. portion relevant "in the statute read: case (later Colo. Sess. Laws 98-94 codified R.S. appellant shall succeed the district (1908)). § 5641 There was no board of as- upon presentation to him sessment and no alterna- arbitration copy of a certified of the order of [treasurer] appeal process tive. id. The See entire judgment, modifying same and in all county assessor commission cases where tax so collected shall be (now BOE) to ers the district court resid- refunded, shall receive interest provision separate ed in one divided into on the amount refunded...." Id. at 500. paragraphs phase. for each Id. in light preceding When reviewed *7 ver- paragraph relating appeals The to the sion of this this revision did not that, provided taxpayer district court if the change existing requiring county the law the court, appeal succeeded on to the district treasurer to make the refund. "the treasurer shall such tаx ... refund upon presentation the to him of a certified When the chapter repealed entire was and copy judgment modifying of the order of the legislature reenacted in the combined same, the in and all cases where tax so payment the payment of refund and the collected shall be refunded the shall long containing costs into one sentence the receive interest on the amount refund- today, two elements we construe "shall ... added). (emphasis ed...." Id. sentence This receive" and "as be fixed": supports understanding our the term upon Effects of court decision.-If appeal today "shall" thе sentence we review im- sustained, appellant the shall be whole posed county a mandate on the and treasurer part, upon presentation or in then to the entity. no other copy treasurer of a certified order separate In paragraph a dedicated to judgment modifying the for as- valuation original prevailing law stated that a tax- property, sessment of his he shall forth- payer "may" appeal, recover costs on while a appropriate with receive the refund of tax- es, together with prevailing county "shall" recover costs eight interest thereon at against tаxpayer: per per pay- cent annum from the date of producing thereof, cost
The his witnesses before ment a and refund of costs said court, county witnesses, including commissioners shall be the fees of his paid by petitioner, and the cost of in such amount as fixed authority BAA the giving In county, then Laws court; judgment be for the if Assembly appeals, the General to hear these costs from county shall recover or substance of now fixed not alter the text amount as did in such appellant 109(1), leaving the costs award as subsection court. reviewing discretionary decision of the enti- 1, § 1964 Colo. Sess. 94, see. Ch. newly duties ty. did the enumerated Nor added). It is thus (emphasis Laws appeal. duty award costs on include cost award that the 1964 enactment with this defining voice in passive takes on amendment, clause subsection the 1970 With However, nothing in the reen- payment. 109(1) construe, and took the form we now entity other than that some suggests actment time did not amendments since other pay the refund the treasurer must language. change the relevant taxpayer. statutory history, we know that From this enactment, Additionally, this taxpayer began as a prevailing costs to a cost the nature of the legislature altered discretionary while decision prevail- previous language that awards. mandatory. county were prevailing costs to a re- "may recover" was ing taxpayers form, structure of In its revised the sentence costs amount "as of costs placed an award changed from active to subsection was And, the for- by the court. may be fixed" voice, attempt no passive but there was prevail- mandatory of costs to merly award mandate that the court award costs to ("shall ing county recover Instead, permissive prevailing taxpayer. discretionary changed to a was petitioner") through persisted of such has nature awards county in an amount prevailing to a аward amendments, including the addi- the various by the court. Cost awards may be fixed" "as tion of the BAA as an alternative prevailing coun- taxpayers and prevailing route. revised to be consistent with ties were thus This evolution shows each other. IV. Conclusion to be dis- intended these awards of subsec- We conclude that support for the cretionary, and there is no scheme, 109(1), statutory otherwise. contention legislative history firmly support all the con- Assembly passed In the General 109(1) imposes no clusion that concerning "An act Bill 1058: House mandatory duty on the BAA. Whether tax; creating a division of general property discretionary remains within the award costs taxation, tax including property property the Board. powers of administrator, providing for a board of judgment of the court of defining pow- appeals; their Taxpay- decline to award the reversed. We duties, ers, and functions." Ch. *8 appeal. requested their costs on ers bill, In this Colo. Sess. Laws 871-88. Assembly the BAA and enu- General created dissents, MARTINEZ and Justice Justice duties, inserting as an its the Board merated joins EID in the dissent. layer of review between intermediate court. Ch. appeals to the district dissents. BOE and Justice COATS 187-8-25, 90, 1, § 1970 Colo. Sess. Laws see. MARTINEZ, dissenting. Justice 28, duties); 90, see. (enumerating Ch. my express opin- respectfully I dissent 187-8-6, (pro- Laws 886 1970 Colo. Sess. plain language of subsection 39- ion that the BAA, the BOE to the viding for 8-109(1) The third the instant case. resolves court). the district The General and then to 39-8-109(1) contains of subsection sentence accordingly provi- amended the Assembly language: following critical appeals to conform to relating to these sions receive appellant ... shall forthwith adding [TJhe reference to the provisions, the new of taxes and delin- appropriate refund regarding BAA in now subsection ... a refund of quent interest thereon decision. a BAA or district court effects of of in said court or board 24, § costs 1970 Colo. Sess. see. Ch. among "selecting interpretations reasonable be, may including appeals, the case as witnesses, in appellant's particular language such of the fees chosen legislature." Pac. R.R. Co. v. Mar by the court or Union amount as be fixed (Colo.2009). case tin, of assessment as the 209 P.3d Because may be. I that believe while written, poorly provides nonetheless for a face, expressly provides On its the statute mandatory award of I find no need in or taxpayer, that a who is successful whole rely ambiguous interpretation on an part, shall receive an award of costs that statutory history. Accordingly, respеctful I Despite passive includes witness fees. this ly dissent. sufficiently provides the statute including the refund witness I am authorized to state that EID Justice mandatory. fees There is therefore no joins in this dissent. statutory need to resort to other rules of Meredith, People construction. COATS, dissenting. Justice (Colo.1988). 562,564 comparatively insignificant Given the Nonetheless, majority argues that. the amount of costs at issue here and the fact ambiguous. primary statute is concern that the statute has now been amended to appears to be the fact that the statute em- party responsible make each for its own costs ploys contradictory terms generally appeal, may justify be difficultto devot- "shall ... and "as receive" be fixed" ing energy very further I to this case. write reading, the same sentence. A closer howev- dissent, however, briefly in I can because er, provides explanation a clear al- this hardly example recall a clearer of over-con- leged Quite simply, contradiction. while the myself struction this court. While I count award, taxpayer "shall ... receive" an among ambiguity the last to minimize the discretionary amount of the award is virtually inherent all forms of communica- "may the court or Board of tion, painfully I am also aware that bаsic ("BAA"), Appeals Assessment as the case principles interpretation, or hermeneutics contradiction, may be. Due to the lack of world, non-legal can sometimes be ambiguity there is no and no need to turn to used to "up" really demonstrate that means legislative history. or, (in "down" I majority as believe the ef- Indeed, if even these two terms did render fect) "Yes, prove you does this ambiguous, majority's analy- the statute costs," "No, your actually recover means legislative history sis of the does assist you may not." determining me in whether an award is man- The critical at issue here is found datory discretionary. analysis In its single in a sentence and involves neither legislative history, majority focuses complex terms of art nor cross-references separate on three iterations of subsection 39- provisions. clearly provides other It 8-109(1); iteration of first the statute upon modification of the valuation for assess- subsequent revision property, appellant ment of his shall Apparently, reenactment. the evolution forthwith receive a refund of his costs. Be- of the statute over these three iterations is assessment, property cause an of a meant to show that intended cireumstances, depending upon might discretionary. award сosts to be *9 by heard either the district court or the however, problem, majori that the is pro- board of assessment the statute ty's analysis support does not its contention. ceeds to indicate that the amount analysis prior Its enactments of sub "may refund be fixed" either the court or 89-8-109(1), more, section without are in board, as the case be. simple they conclusive for the reason that statutory language. involve different permissive "may" Use of the term in refer- language prior in these iterations does ence to the two alternate to which the bodies language taken, illuminate especially the current subsec have been when be," phrase, followed the "as the case let alone assist me with to mean that naturally understood "may by the court or amount by the It cannot
"may fixed" board. be understood, however,
reasonably to mean mandating a refund of costs despite sentence, earlier in the same appellant ap- allow now intends to body fix an amount of
propriate and award not, pro- if the at its choice. Even fixing of costs could be
cess of an amount degree inherently involve some
understood to discretion, simply than an account- rather statutory expenditures,
ing possibly imply that the decision
could not nothing more than
whether to award costs beneficence, apparently as con-
a matter of majority.
templated statutory language I believe the
Because ma- perfect sense as written and the
makes
jority's simply carries elaborate construction further reasonable
it further and
understanding respectful- of that I
ly dissent.
The PEOPLE of State Colorado, Plaintiff BALTAZAR, Defendant.
Theresa
No. 10SA101. Colorado,
Supreme Court of
En Banc.
Nov. 2010. Attorney May,
Daniel H. District for the District, Terry Sample, Fourth Judicial Baker, Attorneys, Doyle Deputy District Col- Colorado, Springs, Attorneys for Plain- orado tiff. *10 Migliaccio, Springs,
Davide C. Colorado Colorado, Attorney for Defendant.