*1 MсIntosh, III, B.A. VILLINES, Pulaski County Judge; Floyd Assessor; Pulaski v. Nora HARRIS Board Equalization and Pulaski County 99-297 of Arkansas Court
Supreme 10, 2000 delivered February Opinion *2 Burnett, Pulaski County Karla M. Attorney’s Office, by: Amanda Mankin, Chrestman, and Keith for appellants. P.A., Dixon,
Dover & Thomas S. Stone and Michael R. by: Johns, for appellee. Arnold, WH. “Dub” Chief This case presents Justice. from an order of the Pulaski appeal interlocutory Harris, Circuit Court Nora granting appellee, injunctive
relief from appellants’ assessment collection of real any property tax as a result of or based the 1996 of the real reappraisal located within Pulaski property Arkansas. County, Significantly, Court of certified the case this as Aрpeals an issue of interest, substantial solely determine whether public the circuit continued tax assessment erred enjoining appellants’ is authorized pursuant our Accordingly, jurisdiction collection. P.—Civ. and Ark. R. (1999), App. Ct. Rule l-2(d) Ark. Sup. 2(a)(6) related, consider substantive us to
Notably, urge parties erred issues, finding whether circuit court (1) including action, whether and (2) over jurisdiction has subject-matter However, we decline to claim. stated an illegal-exaction Harris Moreover, we reiter- not before us appeal. reach issues properly to a in this matter is confined our ate that appellate order court’s interlocutory injunc- review of circuit fact, the trial 2(a)(6) (1999). tion. See Ark. R. P.—Civ. App. *3 in this certain remain unresolved court stated that issues proceeding, that the issue and class certification. Given including damages the the this court is whether circuit jurisdic- before possessed we hold that the circuit court erred and tion to an grant injunction, we reverse.
Background values in to its Pursuant obligation equalize real-property held a Pulaski Board of the the county, County Equalization special a an in and contract with outside appraisal meeting approved the was executed firm. contract county judge, appraisals on the tax rolls аnd values were were reappraised placed performed, Harris, in owner and her 1996. Nora a property taxpayer, appealed to the Board of reassessment Equalization. 1996, 14, filed a Harris complaint
Subsequently, August County the Pulaski Court Pulaski County Judge Floyd alleging III, Villines, other officials violated Arkansas and county statutory due- owners’ federal Pulaski County property requirements a via the assessment. As rights county-wide, real-property process result, she and an declaratory sought judgment injunction new from taxes based collecting any upon prevent appellees values. After hearing County Judge arguments, Spеcial reappraised lacked the Hunt Russ concluded county power section 14-14- Ark. Code Ann. injunction pursuant grant which the issuance 1002(a), only permits However, he from the county. granted absence a chancellor Harris and favor of found that summary judgment appellants violated her under the Fourteenth Amendment due-process rights because failed to follow Arkansas statute. they proper Impor- 21, failed to tantly, court’s March appellants appeal 1997, Further, order. continued to collect taxes based appellants reappraisal.1 1997, 1,
On Harris filed new action in the April Pulaski Court and County Chancеry sought injunction prohibiting from tax statements and taxes based on the issuing collecting Const, Pursuant to Ark. art. and Ark. reappraisals. Code 16-113-306, Ann. section courts have chancery or unauthorized grant injunctions taxes assess against illegal Polk, ments. Priestv. 322 Ark S.W.2d 902 Pockrus (1995); Assn., Bella Vista Owners Village Property Pulaski County Court Although Chancery appar had claim, ently over Harris’s subject-matter jurisdiction the parties transferred the action to circuit court. Court,
At the Pulaski Circuit Harris again sought relief. She injunctive continued tax collec- alleged appellants’ tion constituted an exaction and violated Pulaski County owners’ constitutional She also property rights. dam- money sought filed motion to ages. response, dismiss and appellants argued that the circuit court lacked over subject-matter jurisdiction Harris’s claim. After reviewing counsels’ pleadings arguments, Spe- *4 cial Circuit S. Judge Patterson found that the circuit court had John claim, over Harris’s which it jurisdiction deemed an illegal-exaction Moreover, claim. the circuit court concluded that it had the author- to issue an ity court’s light final and order and unappealed conduct. appellants’ subsequent Reserving certification, the issues of and class damages the circuit court 1998, entered an order on interlocutory December enjoining assessment and collection appellants’ of taxes based the 1996 order, From that comes the instant reappraisal. interlocutory appeal. 1 absence of a record, we remain bewildered complete evidentiary by appel lees’ conduct. Their initial failure to with the with comply statutory procedures, coupled (failing their ignoring conduct, and then binding the final and subsequent appeal, county- order), disturbing creates a we Nevertheless, are without picture. wholly instruct the circuit pending court how should on issue. proceed
323
I. Interlocutoryappeal
a
First,
оf the instant
As
we consider
scope
appeal.
rule,
for
decision
from an interlocutory
brings up
an appeal
general
taken, here,
which
was
the decision from
appeal
review only
5
and Error
of an
Seegenerally,
Appeal
injunction.
granting
C.J.S.
court will not
an
&
1999). Conversely,
appellate
(1993
Supp.
738
no
decision from which
appeal
review another interlocutory
to consider an
an
was certified
For
where
taken. Id.
appeal
example,
and third-
dismissalof a counterclaim
from the
appeal
interlocutory
the defendant
concluded that
the court
appeals
complaint,
party
to the
review unrelated issues
not
pertaining
could
bring up
trial
See Coleman’s
still
in the
court.
suit that was
pending
primary
Inc., Ark.
Center, Inc.
Inns
v. Southern Management,
App.
Service
Ark.
P.
see also
R. Civ.
54(b). Specifi
The mere issue significant alone, basis for this court to an insufficient accept jurisdiction ing 165, 167, Chilldres, Scheland interlocutory appeal. Here, Harris appellees’ suggests exaction” in a manner never conduct rises to the level of an “illegal we extend considered the court. She before frankly requests can rise law and find that a flaw in the assessment existing procedure Neverthe to an exaction. this is issue. Arguably, significant less, her we not reach the merits of When argument. appeal reaches a court via an order injunction, granting preliminary the merits the case further court will not dеlve into appellate its than is to determine whether the trial court exceeded necessary discretion in Dist. v. Sch. injunction. Special Speer, F.2d 420 Cir. The sole before the (8th 1935). question appellate *5 from the rules and is whether the trial “departed order,” and not whether making principles equity Dist., the order. Sch. 75 court would have made appellate Special F.2d at 421-22.
Moreover, when the trial court’s subject-matter juris
action,
diction is essential to an
the trial court’s
that it has
ruling
does not render that order
even if
proper jurisdiction
appealable,
Brisson,
is
erroneous.
Ins. v.
ruling
Signa
Ark.
case,
S.W.2d 716
In such
this court
retains
indеpen
dent
to raise the issue of our
duty
own
because a
jurisdiction
final
Id.;
order is a
for this court to act.
jurisdictional
see also
requisite
Killam,
Muellerv.
Here, we have a distinct basis and specific authority hear the from an and the extent of our appeal injunction, review is on the decision from. we dependent appealed Although may regret our lack of a trial ability court sufficient give guidance error, remand so that it avoid we cannot might precipitately prevent such error the trial court’s by action. We have preempting held long role, worse, that our for better or tois decline to issue advisory Seeco, Hales, 402, 414, See Inc. v. opinions.
234, 241 (1997). We are limited to a review of the record before us. of our light we jurisdictional grounds, decline to reach the issues: following whether the (1) circuit court erred in finding action, has subject-matter over whether (2) Har- claim, ris stated an whether the illegal-exaction (3) circuit court erred in finding appellant’s merits of attempts relitigate order are County-court barred res (4) issues by judicata, any the, relating summary issues judgment, (5) as any relating yet, unawarded issues damages, (6) any the motion for concerning class certification. we are aware that at the conclusion of the instant order, marked litigation, of a final these entry issues be ripe while these are appeal. issues Accordingly, of this beyond scope in this interlocutory appeal, nothing opin- ion shall be construed aas bar to a or all of subsequent appeal any these issues.
325
II. Injunctiverelief
it hаd the
court’s
that
Next,
the circuit
finding
consider
we
of
In
affirming
relief.
support
grant
injunctive
to
authority
appellee
to
her
decision,
court’s inability
grant
cites the county
the
appellee
of
that the
cir
posits
presence
appellee
an
Specifically,
injunction.
of
from the absence
county-court
derives
authority
cuit-court
in
fallacy
reasoning.2
amounts to logical
This argument
authority.
had the
the
court
for the fact that
chancery
to account
It also fails
main
an
Alternatively,
her
injunction.3
appellee
authority
grant
has not been given
over injunctions
jurisdiction
that because
tains
have the
of
circuit
power
to courts
equity,
exclusively
it when
in a
before
ancillary
an
case
to issue
injunction
properly
Arkansas
relief. See
or as necessary
grant
its
complete
jurisdiction
Ark.71,
(1989);
299
Howard W. I concur SpecialJustice, concurring. Brill, in the that the circuit court should not have opinion However, issued an as below I injunction. set out do so for different reasons than the majority. this court does not issue
Certainly There- advisory opinions. fore since the trial court refused to rule expressly issues certification, and class the refused to majority wisely address those issues. the Circuit Court in its order of 28, 1998, December did the grant summary judgment taxpayer, recognizing court validity judgment addition, on relief the merits. In taxpayer at the trial parties court level and in their briefs and have raised and con- arguments tested the issues of claims and res When this illegal-exaction judicata. court, case is remanded to the circuit transferred back perhaps these will chancery, issues return. Guidance from this court will help subsequent judicial process.
I. Subject-matterjurisdiction This case is in the circuit court and properly should remain there. With the consent of both the action was transferred parties, to Circuit Court in 1997. While motions were July pending, filed an amended taxpayer on It 1998. petition August alleged grant of a circuit court was not even an issue on See authority appeal. Cummings, (Newbern, 296 Ark. at concurring). 281-82, 753 S/W2d at 868 Therefore, J., court’s to the circuit court’s action resulted not from a on the acquiescence deliberation merits but from the of the scope appeal. been and had therefore been based appraisal taxes had collected, damages. and the taxpayer sought unlawfully states, remained action could have clearly As the had court would have authority because that court chancery However, circuit to award damages. doctrine under the clean-up matters, vests of all unless Constitution courts are repository Const, Likewise, art. 11. elsewhere. exclusivejurisdiction courts have 16-13-201 that circuit Ann. section provides Ark. Code for the enforce- all actions and proceedings “orignal jurisdiction when exclu- redress of civil wrongs, except ment civil rights to other courts.” sive given action was commenced in issue when the The crucial original The issue when was the assessment itself. was whether filed in 1997 in April chancery this action *8 But the collection of taxes. should be granted stop an injunction circuit court and the amended action was transferred to when this 1998, the issue became damages. filed in complaint August primary scant, collected, would be had of The taxes been any injunction Further, if is relevance. equity jurisdiction predicated any, law. In context an at absence of adequate remedy procedural have case leaving become adequate remedy, prop- damages in which this court. the circular fashion circuit erly Despite court, did have came to circuit the circuit subject- action judge when he ruled. matter jurisdiction
II. in circuitcourt Injunctions have contested the of circuit court to authority The parties the five The sets forth scattered issue injunctions. majority opinion deal this issue. with given passage precedents in this time since the 1996 appraisal, question declined in and the matter has significance adequacy hold, it is as the has unnecessary remedy grown. Accordingly, does, that courts lack to issue circuit power injunctions. III. Res judicata The doctrine The elements of res are well established. judicata first “(1) of a claim in a suit when bars subsequent relitigation merits; suit resulted a final on the the first suit judgment (2) based the first suit was jurisdiction; (3) contested proper fully faith; in good (4) both suits involve the same claim or cause of action; both suits involve the (5) same or their parties privies.” District, Harris Brake Fire Protection Bailey 287 Ark. S.W.2d 916 (1985).
While the court is not a court of county general jurisdiction, record, it is 14-14-1001, a court of Ark. Code Ann. and had subject-matter The essence of res jurisdiction. is that the judicata had a full and fair parties the issue. The opportunity litigate had such a chanсe in the county addition, action. In original res that a judicata dissatisfied have the requires party opportunity Here the had the and indeed appeal. under Ark. right, Code act, Ann. section 16-67-201 had six months and failed to do so. The actions, were not identical in the two parties for the chancery/circuit action includes additional defendant. However, the modern definition is “a so identified privity person in interest with another he the same represents legal right.” Morrilton, Hawkins, Bruns Foods Inc. v. S.W.2d The privity satisfied. requirement claim the court action challenged appraisal; the claim in the chancery/circuit action went furthеr and the collection of taxes and challenged Those issues sought damages. were and could not premature have been asserted How initially. ever, “issues and remedies raised in the suit do not have subsequent to be identical to those raised in the initial suit in order for the claim *9 preclusion res judicata v. part 295 apply.” Ark. Stafford, Swofford 433, 435, 660, 748 S.W.2d 662 The (1988). circuit court properly Ann, held that the issue of the of Ark. application Code section 26- 26-601 and the failure to follow the county’s had been procedures and the fairly litigated was finding conclusive. The thereby had its in court and is day not entitled to its failure to relitigate adhere tо the Arkansas statutes.
IV claims Illegal-exaction 16, 13, Article section of the Constitution citizen permits any to sue for himself and all others interested to protect “against enforcement of any exactions whatever.” When illegal properly
329
in either circuit
asserted,
be
or
claims may
brought
illegal-exaction
court,
on the
remedy sought.
large part
depending
chancery
529,
Faucher,
The
(1998).
The of this unique posture action a flaw the assessment situations. original alleged court; it was not an in county illegal-exaction properly brought Further, nor this suit claim. neither the suit specifically law. itself that the tax was illegal contrary Accordingly, alleged or flaw in the contends that mistake assessment the county proce- exaction. The dure can never rise the level of an illegal taxpayer hand, on the other while circumstances of admitting special before this case a form of exaction never addressed illegal by present Court, or error in the contends that the mistake assessment first, of two events: into an exaction because grew subsequent second, the the determination by county judge, county’s failure to abide determination. judicial
The has made and frank to extend taxpayer express request Without law. whether a flaw in the assessment existing deciding exaction, can ever rise to an in the procedure unusual illegal setting of this case it did not. At a in session the Board of special decided, to its in authority Ark. Code Ann. Equalization pursuant 26-27-311, section to conduct the employ professional appraisers rather than have its in-house staff appraisal, out its duties. carry overlooked, the Board or of ignored, Ark. provisions Code Ann. section 26-26-601 et These seq. provisions require (1) assessor, of the petition signed by county majority equalization board, and a of the local majority government bodies and governing boards; school (2) of the publication (3) a petition; public hearing, with the owners to be heard opportunity or property support court; to the opposition (4) petition; by (5) approval three by owners negotiations the court for proрerty by appointed of of the employment professional (6) appraisers; approval contract by of the judge, majority members bodies, and a of the affected municipal governing school boards. this court
Certainly should not undermine the significance this statute or the intent in these legislative enacting safeguards. However, these facts do not rise to this court’s definition of an prior or void tax. Taxes collected illegal to an con- pursuant appraisal ducted hired by appraiser violation this statute do not become or void.
V. Damages has been has taxpayer She been denied wrongеd. her rights given Arkansas statutes. With notice and the chance to in a she participate hearing, have might persuaded court that no county-wide or that a differ- reappraisal required ent be hired. professional appraiser
The Constitution her redress. guarantees “Every person entitled to a certain all laws for remedy he injuries wrongs Const, receive in his or character.” person, property art. 13. The circuit court has “for the proceedings § enforcement of civil or redress of civil rights Ark. Code wrongs.” Ann. 16-13-201. Governments should not be with permitted *11 remand, the of courts. Upon taxpayer the orders to ignore
impunity hеr damages. to have the opportunity prove should I concur concurring. Justice, Kenneth R. Special Reeves, in erred the Circuit Court view that with the majority there is an so the basis that but do the injunction, Court for sued in Circuit at law. Appellee remedy adequate case, can obtain relief and, her she if she can with prove to the collection As prohibit to injunction money judgment. assessment, out of the the horse already on the flawed taxes based no relief to the at this affords point barn. The entry taxpayer. has the or not Circuit Court authority
The issue whether this Court on several addressed by to issue injunction, though out, ocсasions, As the remains unclear. majority opinion points can recent that Circuit Courts there more authority is certainly however, decision still out there the Monette hangs issue injunctions, — unaddressed. inexplicably law, fact there is an at remedy that adequate Considering does not have to reach question this Court significant Court can ever issue an or not Circuit injunction, whether should not. in dis- Justice, concurring part; Special Richard Lusby, I view that the concur with majority
senting part. in this It issue relief case. court lacked authority circuit injunctive now the court have concluded be appellee well could at in her claim for monetary damages, has an law adequate remedy Nevertheless, doI relief on that basis. injunctive denying appellee circuit is an absence of precedent granting there persuasive agree I with issue injunctions. courts power disagree its refusal to address with subject-matter respect issue. the related illegal-exaction
I. InterlocutoryAppeal that this is an interlocutory noted appeal permit- The majority ted P.—Civ. 2(a)(6) (1999) injunc- R. App. pertaining Ctr., v. SouthernInns Service Inc. tions. Coleman’s Citing Management, Inc., the court concluded 427 (1993), S.W.2d App. could not take issue other than circuit court’s up any authority relief. the court of grant injunctive refused to appeals Ctr., take other issues Coleman’sService Inc. because up those issues were unrelated” to the “totally was the basis of question at Id. 429. That is not true interlocutory appeal. matter now before this court. *12 below, the contended that the circuit proceedings appellant
court lacked Before subject-matter jurisdiction. granting appellee the relief the circuit court injunctive deter- requested, specifically mined that it did have such On jurisdiction. not appeal, appellant relief, that circuit courts lack only argues power grant injunctive it contends that this circuit court again lacks subject-matter jurisdic- the tion in circumstances of this case.
The circuit court’s of relief in bound inextricably up its in decision that it had subject-matter Both jurisdiction. below and on the of appeal, question at subject-matter jurisdiction is the heart the battle over the parties’ of the circuit appropriateness court’s circumstances, relief. grant injunctive Under the it simply cannot be said that fairly the issue of subject-matter jurisdiction unrelated” to the “totally which the provides basis for this interlocutory appeal. concluded majority that the court cannot take the up
issue оf subject-matter The court can jurisdiction. take this issue up can, if it it and should. A refusal do so a makes second appeal almost inevitable. Depending upon outcome of second appeal that does resolve the issue, subject-matter parties’ effort, time, and expense well prosecuting damage action may be for I this court naught. agree should not violate its rules and for However, the sake of principles simply economy. where the court, by now within its acting can guidelines, foreclose the neces- of an action, additional or other sity I appeal believe should. legal
II. Subjeсt-Matter and Exaction Illegal Jurisdiction contends, denies, Appellee appellant vigorously case now before the court involved an exaction. If is an illegal this case, illegal-exaction it is beyond the circuit question does have subject-matter 16, jurisdiction. 13; Ark. Const art. Melton, 362, v. 339 Ark. Barclay 5 S.W.3d 457 (1999); Barnhardt v. However, 321 Ark. 539 (1995). City Fayetteville, concedes that the actions of the appellee collecting case do not fit within the definition tax accepted illegal asks exaction. Consequently, frankly appellee expand exaction to to the definition circumstances of illegal apply this casе in the cir thereby establishing subject-matter jurisdiction cuit court.
As
forth in the
set
background provided
this case
involves
collection of taxes based
opinion,
upon
flawed
I
this court
far
has thus
excluded from the
reappraisal. agree
exaction,
definition of
taxes based
illegal
upon faulty appraisals
Assn.,
assessments.Pockrusv. Bella Vista
Owners
VillageProperty
Frost,
facts in this case go beyond situation of a tax based simple Here, a flawed assessment. was faced with the need *13 The chose property between two reappraisal. county statutory methods for the The conducting reappraisal process. statutory pro visions for these appropriate circumstances involved particular pub lic notice and the owners opportunity to property participate 26-26-601, the Ark. Code Ann. process. et The chose seq. county § a method that did not involve the Ark. Code public’s participation. Ann. 26-27-311. been,
As as decision have egregious this it cannot be the case, basis for an to the illegal-exaction cited pursuant precedents However, above. there is more involved here than a author- taxing determination to exclude ity’s from the The taxpayers process. been denied relief the Board appellant, having by Equalization, court, filed suit in county seeking from prevent county taxes based collecting flawed upon reappraisal process. that the county was flawed agreed declar- reappraisal gave relief but denied an atory based its injunction, determination upon lacked relief. authority such immedi- provide Appellant court, filed suit in ately chancery additional relief which seeking court could county not notice a court of give. Despite by that its competent jurisdiction violated the stat- reappraisal process ute, and notice of despite enforce the ongoing litigation county order, court’s went forward to collect county taxes based upon that was law. Stated another contrary statutory way, reappraisal collected taxes based county knowingly appraisal It action that I had been declared to be is this county illegal. the tax collected an exaction. believe renders illegal the facts described herein do not fit under While precisely exaction, I believe the notions of definition should accepted illegal be broadened to include suсh circumstances. The just enough exclusion of owners from the county’s wrongful property process action, bad The county’s enough. inexplicable ignoring order, matter, court’s cannot be allowed to stand. As a practical the trial court’s decision without reversing addressing subject-matter well do that. jurisdiction may just
I share a reluctance to take action any likely generate unwarranted or undermine the litigation ability county govern- ment to collect taxes. I do not believe narrow legal law would the door to a flood of expansion existing unduly open cases. the action of Pulaski illegal-exaction Hopefully, a court order will not be in this ignoring any repeated other. there would have been much consternation in
Undoubtedly, Pulaski had the determined the County government collection of the tax to be an exaction. I am confi- county’s illegal dent that this consideration no refusal played part majority’s to take this issue. such matters should not be of up Certainly, concern to court. Whatever flow from consequences might determination that an exaction occurred would be the result of Pulaski blatant decision County’s disregard explicit law. I would remand this case applicable statutory back to the circuit court for with a clear proceedings *14 statement that the circuit court has subject-matter jurisdiction by virtue of the fact that an exaction has occurred. E. Baine
Special joins. Justice JAMES