Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN I$onorable John 0. Marburger County Attorney Fayette a0paty La Grange, Texas Dear Sir: 1939, In whloh you reque rore made of tire, Ino. base or ~hiuh YOU r0 u oonoluded bent has r.endered Opinion No. O-1342, rable E. W. Xasterllng, county Attorney, Uaont, Texas, In whioh a question similar in your letter we8 answered. This ioles 734& and 7347 of the Revised Civil aoted fraudulently or h+d adopted a fundamentally wrong mthod of assessment. A copy of? this opinion is enclosed for your further lnepeotlon . ::'eBave examined with Interest the petition of the Fayette Eleotrio CooperatZv&, Inc. whioh me filed before the Eonorable John 0. marburger, Page 2 Comalesionem~ Court of Fayette Couuty. There ie no oon- tontion in the petition that the Btatutory nmthod of asmen- mati and of giving noLOtfce to appear before the Commleaioners* Court or the Board of $qwllzation was not oomplied wlth. Apparently appellant 18 badng ltm petition for re- OQW&W the asrossnant OS thi6 property on rour grounds. It lr naoemary that eaoh of these grounds be uonaldarad in the light or the rule bat down by the Supreme Court of Taxaa ln the ease of State vn. Xallet Land and Cattle Co., 88 2. W. (2d) 471, a8 followr: *The rule haui beau repeatedly annouuoed that, in the absenoe or fraud or lll6gallty. the aotlon of a board of equalization upon a partioular ammso- ment is final; and, furthermore, that auoh valuation willnot be set aside merely upon a showing that the aanm ie In raot exces8i~e. If tha board rtdiy and honestly endeavore to ffr a fair and juet valuation ror taxing ~urpotm~ a a&stake on itr part, under euoh olroura- etaarms, is not rrubjsot to review by the oourto. Texas b Paoffio Ry. Co. v. City of 21 Paso ~(Tex. Sup.) 83 S. W. (26) 245; Rowland V. City of Tyler (Tex. CO& App.) 6 S. W. (2d) 756: Druesdow v. Raker (Tex. Corn. App.) 229 3. W. 493, Duak v. Pealez, 74 Tex. 258, ll 5. W. llll; State v.. Chioago, R. I. h 0. Ry. Co. (Tex. Corn. App.) 863 8. W. 249; 8uuday Lake Ircin Co. v. Wcbfleld, 247 U. S. 350, 38 S. Ct. 496, 62 L. Xd. 1154; However, the rule haa b&en declared that If a bo+rd of equalization adopts a ma6hod that Is illegal arbitrary, or fundazmntally wrong, the de&ion of .the board nay be attacked and set aside." Firat, it is alleged in the petition that the essese- xwmt waa made arbitrarily by the Comnleelonera* Court. ACOOrd- fag to the racte submitted in the opinion request, the property of this oorporation was assessed at a valuation leas than other proparty In the mime oounty. If thls 1s truqthe oorporation hae not been injured aad would have no right to have thls prop- wtp re-aewaaied. If thle were not true, .It would be neoeeeary 170 Xonorabla John C. karburger, Rage 3 for the appellant to ahou~that the Gommissloner8* Court had acted fraudulently before it would be entitled to have it8 property re-asoessed under this that allegation. The rreoond allegation in the appellant*8 petition is that the original as8eoament was made without uelng or taking Into uonalderation the proper method of a8sessment. Ii the SaotB are a8 stated in the letter that appellant*8 property wa8 assessed at a value lower than other property In the aounty then thI8 allegation would avail them nothing. Bowever, oven assuming that appellant's prop8rty was assessed at a value greater than oorrespondlng property in the oounty, than under the above allegation, it would be neoeasery,for it to ahow that the method of aeaeosment adopted by the Com- mI8oIonerev Court was fundamentally wrong and suah as would allow a dietrict court of thie State to eet aside the original as8888me~t. The third allegation in appellant's petition is t&t the Comlselonorag Court did not seek to asoertein the aotual reasonable oash market value a8 provided by Artiole 72ll or the Revised civil Statutss. Artiole 72l.l of Vernon*8 Annotated 8tatuts8 reads as follows: WZiereafter when any person, firm or oorporation renders his, their or its property in thI8 State for taxation to any tax assessor, and makes oath as to the kind, aharauter, quality and quantity or suoh proplrrty, and the Bald offioer aooeptlng said rendition from such person, rlrn or corporation of such property is satiefled that It is oorreotly and proper- ly valued aooordlng to the reasonable oash market value oi euoh property on the .market at the time of it8 rendition, he shall list the same accordingly; but, If the esseseior is ratlsfled that tha value Is below the reasonable aash market value of such property, he shall ut,onoe place on said rendition oppoalte saoh piece of property so rendered an anaunt equal to the reasonable oash market value of auoh roper60 at the time of its rendition, and 1 f such property shall be found to have no market value by suoh officer, then at HOnorable John C. Maiburgr, Bag8 4 Such SU!S 98 said OffiOer Shari deem th8 real or lntrinslo talus 0r the property; and ir the person llatlng such property or the owner thereof Is not aatlsfled with the value plaoed on the property by the a88ea8or, he shall 80 WJtiiy the a88688Or, aqd if desiring 80 t0 do paak8 oath before the a8tse88orthat the vdlua- tion 80 .iixed by said orriicar on said property 18 excessive; suoh offloer to . furnish euoh rsnditlon, together with his valuation thereon sad the oath of, auoh person, ilrm or otrioar 0s any oorpora- tion, ff any euqh oath.has been made, to the 00ncnl8810rLer8' aoupt 0s the oountp 'In whloh said rendition w&s made, whloh oourt shall hear evidence and determine the true value of such propmty on January First, 19 (here give year for which e8ses6memt is mad$ as la herein provided; ouah orfloer or oo~rt 8halltaks into W3~8ld8ra~iOikwhat said property oould hare b86ll sold for any time within Sir months n8Xt before the SirSt day 0s Jamary 0s the y8ar for whloh the property la rendered." hu examination of the above quoted article indioatea that certain notioe is neasssqry to be given'to a taxpayer before a hearing is held by the Commis810wrst Court aotlng es a Board ot Fiquallzatlon. There is nothing in eppell8nt*s petition whiah alleges that this notice Was not'glven and that the hearln(J was sot regular in all. of its details. or ooUrs6, the facts as set out in your letter that the aorpore- tiOn'8 prOpeJ?ty 0168 aSSeS86d at a V8lU6 less than Other prop- erty in the ooUnty would nullify this third allegation. How- ever, uuder any situation it would be neoessary tor appellants iutder this allegation to prove that'ite property had been aSSesSed et a greater Vah8 than Other prOptU+y iU the BOUnty and that this es3e88ment was a result of fraudulent eotiOn on the pa Of the CO;pmi88iOu8rS * court or cr result 0r their hay- iIIg used a,tundamentally wrong method of aS888Em8&. AQ~8lbIlt'S &St and fOUS'th all8gatiOn'lil its peti- tion is that all other property We8 a8ssssed at alxty (t%$) par sent of its reasonable cash niarke& value while the property 4.72 honorable Johu a. Jifarburger, Page 3 of that corporation wa8 arbltrarlly, unlawfully aud without ju8tftiCatiOn and WithOUt the a88 Of the. Pl-Op- LC8thOd Of 68868smen6, a88688Od at a prlae or veluatioa in i3xo888 0s its eatnal oaeh market value. A?p8llMt cctit8nds that this is ololatlve of the 14th &wn6.aient or the Federal Conetltu- tion. Of 00ur86, this allegation is based on a Sac6 whloh is dircratlyin cOntllO6 with the Paata sub%ltted In your latter. Thir fourth allegation seem8 to be a "catch all" allegation. This allegation see88 to inolude aeoh of the other three. It is the opixiion Of this DOpaitant, there- fOr8, that before the Fayette Elsatric Cooperative, Ino. OluI StU4tafn it8 QO8itiOI.I Of hIWing it8 prior 8BS88808ut opened and its property rS-as8088ed it will be neoassary to prove what they have alleged in their rourth allegation - that is, that Its roQ8rty wss 888eSSed at a value greater thau other oorrespon d! ng property in the.couuty and that such aa8888amnt was a result either of rraudulen.eatlon on the part 0s the County Comlssfoaer8* Court or that said court in making the aSSe88iiWll% had adopted a fundameutally wrong method. We trust that the above information will 88m8 a8 a basis for the OOuSidWatiOB oKthe applloation o? Fayette Bleotrlc Qooperatlve, Ino. to have its property re-aa8asa8d. Yours vary truly ATTOREfmOEZ?ERALOF TEXAS BC:RS APZOVEDNOV 17, 1939 5%--L&4.-- ATTORNEY G- OF TEXAS