 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Arizona Department of Revenue and Maricopa County v. Superior Court6/12/1990
Petitioners Arizona Department of Revenue and Maricopa County were defaulted when they failed to submit timely answers to property tax appeals filed in the Arizona Tax Court by taxpayers challenging their property valuations for 1989. This case concerns two such appeals by real parties in interest Citrus Heights Ranches and H & W Partnership # 2. The tax court denied petitioners' motions to set aside entry of default, and, in the one case that has proceeded to default hearing, refused to let petitioners present evidence on the issue of valuation. Petitioners bring this special action seeking relief from the trial court's rulings.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Citrus Heights Ranches and H & W Partnership # 2 (taxpayers) filed separate actions in the tax court pursuant to A.R.S. § 42-177, alleging that the Department of Revenue and County had overvalued their properties for the tax year 1989. Taxpayers initiated their actions by filing documents entitled "Complaint and Notice of Appeal." Neither the Department nor the County filed an answer; instead, in these and many other cases, they filed notices of appearance, asserting "nominal party status." When taxpayers' counsel tendered settlement offers, the County returned the documents, advising that it was taking only "a nominal party posture." Taxpayers applied for entry of default and, when the statutory response period expired, moved for default hearings pursuant to Rules 55(b)(2) and 55(e). Before such hearings were conducted, the legislature appropriated funds for the attorney general to hire outside counsel "to assist in litigation relating to . . . property valuation appeals." Laws 1990, ch. 2, § 2. Petitioners then jointly moved to substitute present counsel, who promptly moved to set default aside in these and similar cases.
Petitioners first argued that default was inappropriately entered because responsive pleadings are not required in tax appeals. Alternatively, they argued, if responsive pleadings are required, their default was excusable. The 1989 appeals, they claimed, were unprecedented in number and overwhelmed their capacity to respond with in-house staff; they had filed nominal appearances as a holding action while seeking the special appropriation that now permitted their response.
At an accelerated hearing, Judge Moroney, sitting as the tax court, denied petitioners' motions to set aside, holding that responsive pleadings must be filed in tax appeals. He further stated, "There is no case for excusable neglect since the nominal party responses were deliberate on the part of both Maricopa County and the Arizona Department of Revenue. There was not an adequate showing that there were insufficient resources. There was not an adequate showing that this was unforeseen."
The default hearing for H & W Partnership was postponed, but the hearing for Citrus Heights took place later the same day before Commissioner Reeves. Citrus Heights presented evidence of overvaluation. The tax commissioner found the assessed value excessive and lowered it. Petitioners were permitted to cross-examine and argue, but were denied permission to present affirmative evidence to support their contested valuation.
The Department and County have failed to answer in over 200 property tax valuation cases. Though these cases were scheduled for default hearings between March 26, 1990, and April 19, 1990, we are advised that the plaintiffs have agreed to postpone the hearings for 45 days to engage
in settlement negotiations and to await our resolution of this special action. We accept special action jurisdiction because so ma
Page 1 2 3 4 Arizona Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|