*1 856 error,
рlain
ander,
empir-
324,
cannot be extended to an
Wyo.
(1958),
78
review, this in verdict termi- misadventure
nology plain Hays constitutes error. v.
State,
(Wyo.1974).
Addressing subject, long another in severely contested trial such as this
one, why it is the appellate understandable court accords discretion to the trial court in UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD normalized decision as here found in a late COMPANY, Appellant permission appellees date to add addi (Petitioner), expert rejection tional witnesses and the by appellants. rebuttal evidence tendered v.
Having understandable, said it is I am not The WYOMING STATE BOARD OF persuaded it did not constitute an EQUALIZATION Strand, and Ann State, abuse of discretion. v. Martin Assessor, Appellees Sweetwater (Wyo.1986). Many P.2d 894 courts have (Respondents). opined about criminal defendants’ use of changing attorneys delay pro obtain No. 90-103. ceedings. change attorneys Here a af Supreme Wyoming. Court of glaring
forded a basis to correct a omission pretrial preparation by present appellees. Dec. might I easily accept more that result as adequate opportunity fair if an to recover realistically
had been to the inno available party. Lacking
cent that time within the where, by attorneys, changing
status a liti
gant sought expert to add additional wit moment, perceive
nesses at the last I
organized process fairly applied would required
have denial. This is the exact opposite
converse and the result of what
happened in By Through Kobos Kobos Everts,
v.
Shields v.
1987).
I any proper also fail to find basis for
rejection tape of the rebuttal video which put together while the trial was
progress consequently could not have subjected chronologically factually
been tender, proposed
to an earlier since
exhibit would have shown what was differ- appellees
ent from what said it was to have
been, proper clear and office for rebuttal
evidence was constructed. v. Alex-
«57 Broomfield, Douglass, D. James Colora- do, appellant; argument by Doug- for Mr. lass. Gen.,
Joseph Meyer, Atty. B. and Michael Hubbard, Atty. Gen., L. appel- Sr. Asst. for Equalization; argument lee State Bd. of presented by Mr. Hubbard. URBIGKIT, C.J., Before CARDINE, THOMAS, MACY and GOLDEN, JJ.
CARDINE, Justice. (Union Company Pacific Railroad Union Paсific) challenges county the Sweetwater (assessor) tax assessment assessor’s of seventeen mobile homes. The Sweetwa- Equalization ter Board of found in Pacific. The Board of favor of Union State reversed, and the district court affirmed the state board. Union Pa- appeals the decision of the district cific court. of the district
We affirm the decision court. single Pacific raises a issue on
Union review: the two intermediate review- “Whether tribunals, i.e., the ing court, the district erro- Equalization and judgment their for neously substituted of facts in the first that of the trier instance, County Board the Sweetwater Equalization.” tax the 1987 assess- Sometimе before ment, purchased a number Union Pacific temporary for track crew mobile homes these mobile living quarters. Seventeen in Sweetwater Coun- situated homes were Pacific of- ty. During April Union sale, advertised, and fered the homes to bid to at least one sent invitations out dealers. The homes home hundred mobile individually. for sale were offered single buyer who sale made to in- bought seventeen mobile homes all appeal. this volved in as- mobile homes were The seventeen county assessor by the Sweetwater sessed in late property pursuant 1987 as omitted The assessor was unaware that the mobile 39-2-403(c), рrovides: to W.S. which homes had been sold Union Pacific at the time of the assessment. She followed “Property prior year omitted from tax regulations valuing state mobile lists discovered *3 assessor homes and valued the homes at 25% shall added the assessment roll and replacement their 1967 cost. computed pe- taxes and collected for the riod the price was omitted not ex- The sale of the homes differed (5) ceeding prior five years or since drastically the from the assessor’s estimated change in ownership, value, last fair whichever as illustrated the chart be- less.” low: Tax Estimated Assessor’s Actual
Acc’t No. Location Fair Value Sale Price $19,139 $2,000 Riner $19,139 $2,000 Riner $19,583 $2,000 Crestón Jet. $19,583 $2,000 Crestón Jet. $20,017 $3,100 Crestón Jet. $19,139 Wamsutter 500 $ $19,583 $2,000 Wamsutter $17,383 Bitter Creek 500 $ $17,817 Bitter Creek $ 500 (cid:127) $19,139 Pt. of Rocks 500 $ $15,739 Pt. of Rocks $ 500 $17,817 Pt. of Rocks 500 $ $17,817 Pt. of Rocks 500 $ $16,939 Bryan 500 $ $16,939 Bryan $ 500 $19,139 West Vaco $ $19,139 West Vaco $ paid Union Pacific the tax due on the ceived Union Pacific its sale of the assigned by value the mobile homes not their “fair assessor but filed a was value” because the sale not a protest place was “market with the Sweetwater Board transaction” under State Tax Equalization. hearing A was held be- Commission/State Board of board, parties fore the and provided both rules. The state board reversed the deci- testimony аnd exhibits. county sion of the board and remanded the board, county The on October county reassessment, case to the board for Fact, “Findings issued Conclusions of taking into account the actual condition of Law and Order” which it held that the providing the homes adequate al- sale Union Pacific arms-length, was an depreciation. lowance transaction, bona fide and that the sale petitioned Union Pacific then the district price of the homes their “fair value” judicial court review of the state purposes. for tax It ordered the assessor board’s decision. The district court issued adjust the taxable value to mаtch the 14, 1990, February a decision letter on up- price sale of the units. holding the of the decision state board. county timely appealed assessor the question The district court found that county board’s decision to the State Board “[wjhether pricing decision of the Equalization. The state board reviewed accepted market can be as ‘fair market ” evidence on file and briefs submitted presented value’ a of law for parties findings, and issued its conclu- required which it was accept sions, August and order on 1989. The findings county of the board. The court state price board concluded that re- found that sale issue was in the transaction, evidentiary materials “[Ujsing the same nature of wholesale as the determined refer- the same review standards valuation should be paid by court, independent the ultimate price ence to the to be conduct an district we the state board’s upheld matter, consumer. It just as if it had inquiry into the county board. mand of the case directly agen- proceeded to us from cy.” Wyoming Rehab. Cen- Southwest deci- agency scope of our review of Comm’n, 781 Employment ter v. Sec. specified to the extent sions is limited P.2d 16-3-114(c) (July 12.09 and W.S. W.R.A.P. 16-3-114(c) Repl.). Wyoming Statute board was Since this case the states: fact and the state board findеr of the *4 make necessary to a “(c) To the extent testimony, treat heard no additional we will the review- presented, and when decision the state level of board as an intermediate ques- decide all relevant ing court shall the review and accord deference to law, interpret constitutional and of tions Thus, county findings the board’s of fact. determine the statutory provisions, and primary focus of our review will be wheth- of applicability of the terms meaning or county er the board’s decision was lawful making In the follow- agency action. an supported by and substantial evidence. determinations, the court shall ing сounty board found that The Sweetwater it parts record or those of view the whole pro- over Union Pacific’s jurisdiction it had by party a and due account shall cited appeal; that the mobile homes test and prejudicial the rule of error. taken of to bid pursuant sold to an invitation were reviewing court shall: they buyer; that purchased and one “(i) unlawfully Compel agency action prop- in late 1987 as omitted were assessed unreasonably delayed; and withheld or county assessor had followed erty; that the agency “(ii) unlawful and set aside Hold valuing homes at mobile state direction action, found to findings and conclusions value; market their 1967 fair 25% be: sale, county that, the at the time of “(A) an abuse of Arbitrary, capricious, price of the sale or was unaware assessor not in accordance discretion or otherwise fur- transaction. It the nature of the sale law; with the value of the mobile ther found that “(B) right, Contrary to constitutional the value far exceeded homes as assessed immunity; power, privilege or sold; that the homes they were for which “(C) jurisdiction, statutory In excess county by the asses- inspected not had been lacking statu- authority or limitations or assessor, county sor; deputy and that tory right; had admitted that Applequist, Marvin “(D) procedure observance Without a fair value all of the elements of sale met law; or required by Finally, the board found sale. “(E) by substantial evi- Unsupported the sale regarding data information record of on the dence in a case reviewed of information the definition were within hearing provided statute.” agency an should con- assessor data determining fair value. sider appeal from a dis considering In an action, agency we review of trict court’s sup- are material facts find these We any accord by, nor must we are not bound and will evidence ported substantial to, court’s de the district special deference for that of judgment our substitute seek to questions of law. Matter cisions on agency’s conclusions It is the agency. Co., P.2d Laramie Land North dispute in this primarily are of law which accord The deference we (Wyo.1980). appeal. of fact fact finder’s determination following conclu- made the The board agency, not belongs the administrative in this case: of law sions Wyoming Public Ser the district court. made the Union “1. That the sale P.2d Hopkins, 602 v. vice Comm’n Village Ponderosa Corporation Pacific Cheyenne, Wyoming, gives examples was an arms- Davis of such ultimate facts, fact, questions or mixed length, law bona fide commercial transаction. in his Administrative Law Treatise: “2. That the of the above-refer- terms questions “Mixed of law and fact are enced sale did and do constitute the best throughout easy common the law. Some information available to As- samples: Is X the owner? Is the book respect sessor with value. employee? Is the foreman an obscene? “3. That the amount received Union reorganization plan eq- fair and Is Corporation respect Pacific to said negligent?” uitable? Was the defendant mobile homes is the fair value of said Davis, Administrative Law Treatise mobile homes accordance with the (2nd 1984). at 367 ed. 29:9 regulations rules and The distinction our standard of Commission, Chapter State Tax Sec- agency findings of fact and con review of 4(a).” tion clusions of law is well established. When fact, reviewing agency’s findings we analysis Proper of the board’s conclu- if look to see we can find from the evidence clarify requires sions that we a threshold preserved in the record rational view procedure. of administrative *5 findings agency. of made fact questioned district court whether the coun- so, say findings sup If we then are ty legal board’s conclusions of law were evidence, ported by and our re substantial actually agency conclusions or were find- complete. Holding’s view of them is Little ings disguise. of fact in We determine Comm’rs, v. America county that the board’s conclusions were 699, 670 P.2d 704 wholly neither conclusions of law nor find- agency standard of review for deter- Our fact, ings findings but were rather questions requires of law us minations questions or of ultimate mixed law fact possibilities: to examine three distinct opportunity We will take this to fact. agency may correctly apply “The their clarify applicable judicial the rules to findings rule of fact to correct questions of mixed of law and fact. view case, agency’s In conclu- law. such The federal third circuit has articulated agency are affirmed. But siоns findings the difference between of basic apply findings could their of fact to the fact and ultimate facts follows: wrong they rule of law or could incor- “Basic are the historical and narra- rectly apply findings their of fact to a facts tive events from the evidence case, elicited rule In correct of law. either we trial, presented by stipula- admitted agency correct an conclusion to ensure tion, denied, required, or not where accordance with law. Our standard of responsive pleadings. any conclusion of law Inferred factual review straightforward. If the conclusion of conclusions arе drawn from basic facts law, when, law is accordance it is af- permitted only and to the are firmed; not, if it is it is to be corrected.” that, logic experience extent and human Employment Security Comm ’n v. West- probability indicate a that certain conse- Processors, Ltd., 866, P.2d ern Gas 786 quences can and do follow from the basic * * * (citations omitted). (Wyo.1990) 871 legal precept implicat- facts. No permissible factual infer- drawing ed agency’s When an determinations ences. But an must be fact, of law and will contain elements we inferred fact concept distinguished from a described findings not treat them as of fact. We a term of art as an So ‘ultimate agency findings extend deference fact.’ conceived, an ultimate fact is a mixture reviewing finding of “basic fact.” When legal precept[.]” fact,” of fact and Universal of “ultimate we divide the factual Minerals, Co., Hughes Inc. v. & 669 legal aspects finding C.A. to deter 98, (3rd Cir.1981)(emphasis F.2d 102 add- mine whether the correct rule of law has ed). properly applied to facts. If the been
861 properly erty marketplace correct rule of law has not been has been offered in the length applied, agency’s we do not defer to the for a reasonable of time.” finding agency’s but correct the error in There is n authority split ques- on the See, stating applying the law. either price paid in tion of whether the a fair sale 447, Hollister, Wash.App. 687 Cooley v. 38 property’s of a is conclusive evidence value 230, (1984); Church P.2d 233 Mill Street purposes. general- tax assessment See 263, (Ky. 266 785 S.W.2d Hogan, v. Christ Annotation, ly, Proper- Sale Price Real Poudre Forbes v. School App.1990); Cf. ty Determining as Evidence in Value for (Colo. 1990) R-1, P.2d 679 Dist. Tax Purposes, Assessment 89 A.L.R.3d appellate responsibility had (agency level (1979). previous Our cases have not fact, findings of which make own ultimate directly question, addressed this and we do ALJ); could differ from those of and see not need to resоlve it in appeal. this 2 Am.Jur.2d Administrative generally, real is whether Union Pacific’s (1962) and cases cited Law §§ sale of the trailers was for “fair value” see, Comptroller therein. But Trea of Interna requirements under the of the tax commis- sury v. World Book Childcraft sion rule. tional, Inc., Md.App. 508 A.2d major point of contention con (1986)(great agency appli deference cerning the is whether the sale trailers facts). cation of law to place were “offered in the market for a county We now address the board’s con- length reasonable of time.” We find that to determine whether the clusions of law they were not. agency proрerly applied the correct law to hearing, Culp, At the board Janet supported by facts substantial evidence. agent, a Union Pacific testified as follows: *6 The conclusion that Pacific’s board's Union 1987, April “In late Union Pacific ad- price sale was the fair value of the mobile out requests vertised and sent bid to one purposes homes for tax rests on its conclu- hundred mobile home dealers. Bids “arms-length, that the sale an sions twenty- were on an individual basis on transaction” terms “con- bona fide whose homes, nine mobile seventeen of which stituted the best available information” County. were located in [Sweetwater] respect to value. Our ultimate con- hundred ranged Bids from five dollars to agency properly cern is whether the deter- [per three thousand one hundred dollars mined, permissible application au- by a added) (emphasis unit].” facts, thority price the sale sent Union Pacific The invitation to bid constituted “fair value.” your instructed bidders to “submit written (May Statute 39-2-102 1985 quotation by utilizing pre-addressed en- time, Repl.), provided: in effect at the velope.” property “All taxable shall be valued at a In and Distilleries v. Guild Wineries conformity
fair value with the values Cal.App.3d County, Fresno prescribed by procedures the board (1975), Cal.Rptr. the California Court рrovided by this act.” Appeals “open defined an market trans- purposes tax as follows: action” for Regulations Wyo- Rules and of the ‘open “An market’ transaction is one Commission, XXII, ming Tax ch. price negotiated is 4(a) where the sale be- described “fair value” as follows: § “ buyer tween the and seller as distin- ‘Fair value’ is defined as the amount guished resulting a sale from the from cash, reasonably equivalent or terms of bids where the seller sells submission cash, buyer justi- is that a well informed highest buyer buys bidder or the paying property and a well fied for a from lowest bidder.” justified accepting, seller is informed Comm’n, assuming parties Corporation In that nеither of the Miller v. (Okla.1981), acting compul- the Oklahoma Su- thereto are under undue P.2d 1006 stated, assuming prop- preme involving in a case sion and further that the Court forcibly pooled fair market value of Empirical miner- value to the market extent de- als, terminable, open process, that a sale on the market contem- whatever for an plates negotiations piece property parcel face-to-face at arms individual or nature, land, length. very valuation, “By its or estate sealed-bid condemnation process incompatible open requirement is with an is different mar- from the of taxa- Miller, ket sаle.” tion 1008. which addresses the class and not the parcel. individual In assessment for taxa- case, In this the submission of bid letters tion, it equally ap- is the rational method to one hundred mobile home dealers and plied which is the search not the con- the receipt provide of sealed bids did not temporary price appraiser’s sale esti- give buyer and take between and seller mate of value. open market constitutes sale. We say are unwilling to that no auction aof provision The constitutional in effect un- property provide could ever its fair value adoption til November 1988 amend- purposes. fоr tax But assessment where provided: ment using offered to dealers property, except All as in this constitu- paid by sealed bids and the value the suc- provided, tion otherwise shall uni- be grossly cessful disproportionate bidder is formly taxation, assessed and the (accounting to the assessed value for de- legislature prescribe regula- shall such preciation), hold that fair value we is not just tions as shall secure a valuation for sale, established and the assessor property, person- taxation of all real and may disregard price sale favor of al. proper other criteria used to determine fair Const, Wyo. аrt. value. pro- The 1988 constitutional amendment equalization’s board con- vided: clusion in this case that the amount re- ceived Union Pacific was fair value (a) property, except All as in this con- erroneous as a matter of law. We affirm provided, stitution otherwise shall be uni- the district court’s order. Reassessment formly valued at its full value as defined accomplished should under the guide- (3) legislature, in three classes as *7 opinion lines set this forth in and that of follows: the state board. (i) production Gross of minerals and Affirmed. products lieu mine in of taxes on the produced; land where C.J., URBIGKIT,' specially filed a (ii) for Property pur- used industrial concurring opinion. poses by legislature; as defined the THOMAS, J., dissenting a filed and opinion. (iii) property, All per- other real and URBIGKIT, Justice, concurring. Chief sonal. (b) agree majority
I
determining
legislature
prescribe
with the
The
shall
the
by
percentage
that the reassessment ordered
the
which
of value
shall be as-
Equalization
by
designated
after
sessed within
affirmation
each
class. All
the district
should now
shall
property
court
be affirmed
taxable
be valued at its
is,
alternatively,
legislature
this court. There
full value
the
a
as defined
my
more basic
for
except agricultural
grazing
reason
decision founded
and
lands
precept
within a fundamental
of
which
according
assess-
shall be valued
ment
which
capability
produce agri-
for taxation
should also
of the land to
be
recognized.
products
I write this concurrence
under
for
cultural
normal condi-
with
percentage
pre-
same reason and
the same consti-
tions. The
of value
perspective
tutional
utilized in the
property
concur-
scribed for industrial
shall not
(40%)
Valley
forty percent
rence in
Ranch v.
higher
Teton
State Bd.
be more than
(4)
Equalization,
percentage points
863
justice in
percentage prescribed
possible
for
matters of
is not
more than the
taxation
* * * [vjaluation being
than minerals.
matter of
property
largely
other
a
Id.
opinion.”
at
ket value
al The definition “fair val- standards.” XXII, 4(a), Chapter Rules
ue” found in § Wyoming Regulations
and of the State Tax (1989), does not demand an
Commission
"open It sim- market transaction” either. ply says: Wyoming ex rel. STATE WYOMING “ as the in ‘Fair value’ is defined amount WORKERS’ COMPENSATION DIVI- reasonably equivalent cash, terms SION, Appellant (Objector-Defendant), cash, buyer justi- well informed that a v. fied for a a well paying and justified accepting, OHNSTAD,
informed seller is Appellee Johan A. assuming parties that neither of the (Employee-Claimant). acting compul- under
thereto are undue 90-94. No. assuming prop- sion further that the and Supreme Wyoming. Court erty marketplace in the has been offered length of time.” a reasonable Dec. It this standard Sweetwater Equalization found met the sale conducted this instance.
That to be board had no occasion concerned transaction,” “open market court.
neither does this
I sympathy have more with the constitu- premise concurring
tional advanced
opinion Justice. The of the Chief definition market value” set forth in the “fair of the Regulations
Rules and may not meet
State Board of 11(d) Wyo. Art.
the mandate of Const. equal be uni- taxation shall "[a]ll property.”
form class of How- within each
ever, argument not an that has been that is parties in this
advanced or briefed and, it my judgment,
case would not case
appropriate to resolve the in a consti- briefing argu- without
tutional context being
ment the issue raised and without *10 parties. nothing in this case
I can other than see straightforward of whether to sustain the facts
there was evidence