*1 Harley SHEVLING, Shay, Kenneth Shay, Shay, Michael
John
Sylvia Olinger, Appellees,
v. OF COM
BUTTE COUNTY BOARD
MISSIONERS, capacity acting in its Equali Of Butte
zation, Appellant.
No. 20810.
Supreme Dakota. Court South
Considered Briefs June July
Decided Bennett, A. Main &
Dwight Gubbrud Fourche, appellees. Belle for Bailey, Williams, Terri Lee Fourche, Attorney, appel- State’s Belle lant.
GILBERTSON, Justice County appeals from a sum- mary judgment Eighth entered Ju- Circuit, County. dicial estop- or collateral pel prevented utilization of a method of *2 9, agri- 1997, classified separately September [¶ 5.] On Butte irrigable non-irrigable. land and County appealed as ALJ’s order to the for trial. reverse and remand circuit County We court. The claimed Shevl- ing’s land was properly assessed as irriga- AND FACTS PROCEDURE location, soil, terrain, ble due to its topog- Shevling, Kenneth Henry Shay, raphy and water rights. Shay, Shay Sylvia and Oling- Michael John n In determining [¶ 6.] the 1997 assess- (collectively Shevling) approximate- own er ment, County compared Butte' types 320 acres of land Butte ly soil, by as rated the State according to County. The River uneven^ Belle Fourche productivity, of the property location and 1995, In dissects 1994 and ly this land. irrigability. dry Values for land soils and Shevling’s land had an assessed value of irrigable by soils were determined analyz- $39,561.00. comparable property. sales of It was County In [¶ 3.] Butte assessed the the policy 'County Butte that wáter $148,564.00. at land This increase was available, rights were the property was (cid:127) finding irriga the land was irrigable' if it types had certain of soil. Shevling to the Board of appealed ble. [¶ 7.] The circuit court concluded the Equalization who reduced the assessment of Equalization improperly Director placed $79,633.00. appealed the Shevling to reas great weight on fact Shevling had a Hearing Examin sessment Office right water soil. It specifi- ers, County which reversed the re cally by identified the errors committed manded for reassessment. The reassessed (1) the Director as: failure to consider the $36,- value of the land was reduced to cost of preparation irrigation land for 291.00. which in prohibitive, this case could cost Equaliza- 4.] the Director of (2) existing failure to consider the categorized Shevling’s land irriga- tion as water junior right subject was a to $163,420.00. and valued property ble rights demands allowing of senior no Shevling County to the Butte appealed prime water growing whatsoever Equalization. appeal Board of His was July, mdnths of August September. rejected. 11, 1997, August Shevling On The court further concluded this method of appealed to the Office of South Dakota classification two separate Hearing Examiners. The Administrative classes of for property land (ALJ) Judge Law found that Shevling had and was therefore unconstitutional. The rights approximately 200 acres of court remanded for the case reassessment. however, property, rights the water The final 1997-assessment amount for Furthermore, rights. Shevl- Shevling’s not in the record. land is ing could not pump water from the river County appeal did not during July, August the months of to this Court. September developing the land for irrigation prohibitive. year was cost The ALJ The next this issue was raised again. concluded had once April erred es- On tablishing appealed, separate classifications for de- the 1998 assessment of his land termining irri- Equalization. value of with to the Board of The 1998 potential. gation again The ALJ ordered assessed value based on a was once method that dry irrigability ré-evaluate the considered agricultural property it the land.1 The refused to alter the assess accordingly. assessment. land, Although irrigable agricultural ered the total assessment amount for increased record, $19,555 $55,716 all 320 in value in 1997 to acres is not in 160-acre from land, parcel which was consid- Shevling once STANDARD OF REVIEW May
[¶ On
9.]
Board’s decision to the
again appealed
The value of land is a
hearing
held on
A
circuit court.
question of fact and the
court will
summary judgment
Shevling’s motion
clearly
only be
it is
errone
overturned if
Judge Bastían issued
August
v. Penning
ous. West Two Rivers Ranch
*3
¶70, 6,
motion
549
denying Shevling’s
County,
ton
1996
N.W.2d
a bench decision
SD
(citation omitted).
683,
An
assessor’s
August
Later
judgment.
on
summary
correct.
presumed
valuation will be
West
motion,
28,
court,
1997,
on its own
¶ 20,
Rivers,
70,
Two
1996 SD
N.W.2d
mo-
granted Shevling’s
reconsidered
However,
at 687.
the construction of a
summary judgment.
tion for
application to the case at
statute and its
could
find a
The trial court
not
law,
presents
question
hand
a
which we
pre-
material fact as to
genuine issue of
Rivers,
review de novo. West Two
summary judgment.
granting
clude
¶70, 6,
at 685.
SD
the court
its
summary judgment,
in
13.] As this case was dismissed
[¶
County
Assessor’s 1997
decision on
summary
apply the
judgment,
applica-
we
trial
testimony.
court deter-
ble standard of review.
of res
mined the doctrines
authorized “if the
Summary judgment is
prevented relitigation of
estoppel
collateral
pleadings,
answers to inter-
depositions,
County
illegally classify-
whether the
file,
rogatories,
on
and admissions
to-
land as
agricultural
“irrigated”
affidavits,
any,
gether with the
show
litigated
land as it was
in
“nonirrigated”
genuine
any
there is no
issue
County’s
then held
1997. The court
fact,
moving
material
that the
party
separately classifying agricul-
method of
as a
judgment
is entitled to
matter of
“irrigable”
“non-irriga-
tural land as
6—56(c).
law.”
willWe
affirm
SDCL 15—
contrary
ble” was unconstitutional
only
genuine
when
are no
there
issues of
law. The trial court reversed and
State
questions
legal
material
fact and the
remanded the case and ordered the assess-
correctly
have
decided. All
been
rea-
made in accordance with
ment be
South
from
sonable inferences drawn
the facts
law.
Dakota
of the
must be viewed
favor
non-
moving
The burden is on the
party.
County appeals raising
moving
clearly
an
party to
show absence
issues for our consideration:
following
any genuine
of material
issue
fact and
an
as a
entitlement to
matter
the doctrines of collateral
Whether
of law.
estoppel
govern
of Shevling’s agri-
1998 assessment
County,
Estate
v. Perkins
Shuck
property.
¶
(internal
omitted).
citations
the trial court
Whether
erred
County’s
finding Butte
method of
AND DECISION
ANALYSIS
classifying
separately
agricultural
land was unconstitutional and con-
the doctrines of
[¶ 14.] Whether
col-
Dakota
law.2
estoppel
gov-
trary to South
State
lateral
and res
raise
n. 10.
constitutional
did not
this issue in its
As the entire
issue is
However, predicated
finding by
upon an initial
brief.
covers the issue in
improper
methods
reply.
his
this issue on
court of
addresses
Although may
County,
hinges
we
our dis-
its survival
an affirmance
rebuttal.
exercise
of the trial
on the assessment issue. As
cretion and review
constitutional
issue
appeal,
summary judgment
we decline
we
on the
raised on
to do so here.
reverse
issue
Care,
judicata,
constitutional issue
ren-
is
Wookey,
Prairie Lakes Health
Inc. v.
¶99, 35,
dered moot.
1998 SD
n.
Const,
Shevling’s
XI,
2;
ern the 1998 assessment of
class.
§
S.D.
art.
S.D.
Const,
agricultural property.
VIII,
Rivers,
§
art.
15. West Two
¶70, 7,
1996 SD
land is assessed to SDCL 1Ó-6- 33.1, assessment,- provides which the shall [¶ 22.] Res and collateral following be based on the factors: estoppel, though often interchange used
(1) ably, are distinguishable. Nelson v. capacity produce of the land to Co., Hawkeye Sec. Ins. 369 N.W.2d
agricultural products...
(S.D.1985);
Walker,
380
See Schell v.
305
(2)
soil,
terrain and topographical
.
(S.D.1981);
also,
N.W.2d
922
See
condition of the property including but
Benham,
Melbourn v.
337
not limited to capability, the land’s
(S.D.1980); Gottschalk v. South Dakota
use, climate, accessibility and surface
Commission,
n
Real Estate
erwise (1) for, only successfully can irri- grounds all level land be prevents litigation tion Shelving’s to, recovery gated and the uneven terrain of previ were or defenses regardless together preparation with cost of ously parties, available to the prohibitive, or they preparation asserted determined made such cost whether (2) right proceeding.” Wright, possessed Mil prior Practice Proce Cooper, only which ler & Federal (1981). § at July, Au- precluded during dure: Res Judicata access to water gust when it is needed September applied doctrine We have successfully irrigate. one is The court Schell, in tax cases. before further that this method of assess- We first addressed N.W.2d 922-3. separate ment in two classes of judicata may question of whether land, within subsequent real estate applied to a non-irrigable. As Butte never Pennington County, v. valuation Sabow ruling, appealed this 1997 its correctness is (S.D.1993). In Sa- binding us and is on the Coun- before bow, juris majority we noted other Thus, ty. ques- we now face the narrow supported proposition that as dictions is so tion’ 1998 assessment whether purposes are not for taxation sessments 1997 as to the doc- similar to the invoke val judicata concerning property’s *5 judicata. trine of res years because tax succeeding ue for each a new cause action. period gives to of rise trial court not discern [¶ could 27.] of 259. The determination in any between method the difference the particular of a date is property value as and the the method assessment prop the value of the not conclusive as to in the improper found and unconstitutional by Id. erty subsequent on dates. ‘Tear disagree. assessment. We judg an use his own year assessor must appeal us [¶ the 1998 now before 28.] roll, verify the [therefore] ment and must the Equal- the trial court noted Director of can doctrine of have no the res ization made her 1998 assessment of in application true to the issues value First Director ana- following manner. the recurring proceedings.” Poin assessment lyzed and deter- each sale County Bd. Equaliza dexter v. Hand of irrigable mined of and non- the value ¶ tion, 1997 SD irrigable performed sep- land. She then value 25.] the assessed [¶ While arate the land analysis on to determine judicata, may subject not be to res the non-irrigable it was or based on by the land is method which classified However, types. her affi- according soil to may by judicata.5 res assessed be barred davit, prob- proceeded she then to cure ¶ Poindexter, 71, 15, 565 SD lem that had in the trial areas at 90. In case he is not claim of striking court’s down the 1997 assess- to the amount of the ment: assessment, claiming judi- but rather is completing 16. While the assessment of the cata as method assessment. part by in of the owned Shevling, personally Mr. I trial court in the as- in Di- viewed and considered soil sessment method used Equalization improperly type, topographical of to terrain and rector failed of the property, that while the land had a condition consider facts junior water capable irrigation soil water was non-transferable record, concerning incomplete prior did that a decision method 5. Because of the we operate judicata. not decide Poindexter on the basis that the Po could as res ¶ by indexter, classified method which land is could N.W.2d at 90. However, judicata. we barred did note rights that today [¶ allow Mr. We hold 29.] that doc acres, irrigate and the trine of res apply mar- does not as the Furthermore, question has established a ket value. I material have of fact as to its whether current assess by the Water been informed Re- ment procedure has cured the faults cited source Division that there are by the trial court in striking down the 1997 specific not months restrictions express assessment. In so doing we no junior rights. on water opinion legality on County’s of the analysis, Based I my deter- current assessment methods. We reverse mined that all Section 14 and remand this case for trial the mer non-irrigable should be valued as its as to the legality County’s cur cropland. types While the soil rent assessment methods. irrigable, I not are did believe it looking By was feasible. at the MILLER, Chief Justice and it par- terrain is evident KONENKAMP, AMUNDSON and up cel land was set to benefit Justices, concur. A spreader from a dam. SABERS, Justice, [¶ non-transferable in 31.] concurs would not be of benefit to this result. land. particular parcel of result). SABERS, (concurring Justice Upon viewing Section of Mr. I 32.] concur result' because res I Shevling’s property, again de- apply does annual assess- termined not all the ments, except as to the method assess- irrigable. should be viewed as ment, genuine are of ma- there issues irrigable, I While soils are terial fact as to methods used *6 large patches, steep rock opposed to 1997. slopes and covered brush areas.
Thus, making non-irrig- the soils However, I did
able. view 43
acres Section 11 I
which did believe gentle slope, ter- topography.
rain and