Case Title: Brandt v. TCI Cablevision of Wyoming

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1994-04-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
Brandt v. TCI Cablevision of Wyoming1994 WY 46873 P.2d 595Case Number: 93-183Decided: 04/22/1994Supreme Court of Wyoming
Douglas 
BRANDT, Park County Assessor,

Appellant 
(Petitioner),

 

v.

 

TCI 
CABLEVISION OF WYOMING,

Appellee 
(Respondent),

and 
Wyoming State Board of Equalization,

Appellee 
(Intervenor).

 

Appeal 
from the District Court, Park County,

Hunter 
Patrick, J.

 

Representing 
Appellant:

John 
O. Housel, Park County Atty., Cody.

Representing 
Appellees:

John 
R. Perry of Goddard, Perry & Vogel, Buffalo, for appellee TCI Cablevision of 
Wyoming, Inc.

Thomas 
D. Roberts, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Cheyenne, for appellee Wyoming State Bd. of 
Equalization.

 

Before 
MACY, C.J., and THOMAS, CARDINE, GOLDEN and TAYLOR, 
JJ.

GOLDEN, 
Justice.

[¶1]      Appellant, the 
Park County Assessor, appeals a decision of the Wyoming State Board of 
Equalization reversing the Park County Board of Equalization's determination 
that the assessor properly valued, for 1992 ad valorem tax purposes, the 
property of appellee, TCI Cablevision of Wyoming, Inc. 
(TCI).

[¶2]      We hold appellant 
lacks standing to appeal a decision of the Wyoming State Board of Equalization 
and thus dismiss the appeal.

ISSUES

[¶3]      Appellant 
presents the following issues for our review: 

I. 
Whether the [State Board of Equalization] did not properly apply W.S. 
18-3-204(a)(ii) (Supp. 1992) in limiting Appellant's authority to properly 
establish the fair market value of Respondent TCI's personal property within 
Park County, Wyoming.

II. 
Whether the [State Board of Equalization] incorrectly ruled that Appellant has 
only limited statutory authority to use "best information available" assessment 
practices in the circumstances of this case.

III. 
Whether the [State Board of Equalization] encroached upon Appellant's 
statutorily mandated duty to establish fair market value of Respondent TCI's 
personal property according to established assessment 
practices.

IV. 
Whether the [State Board of Equalization] did not properly apply Sec. 3(a), 
Chapter 73, Session Laws of Wyoming, 1988 to the facts in this case as 
determined to be supported by substantial evidence by the Park County Board of 
Equalization.

V. 
Whether the [State Board of Equalization] ignored and improperly rejected the 
substantial, credible and relevant evidence which the Park County Board of 
Equalization relied upon to support its decision of October 20, 
1992.

Appellee 
TCI rephrases the issues as:

1. 
May an Assessor unilaterally impose reporting requirements and personal property 
valuation methodologies on taxpayers within his county, even though those 
reporting requirements and methodologies are not authorized by statutes or 
approved by the State Board of Equalization?

2. 
May an Assessor unilaterally impose a Best Information Available (BIA) 
Assessment on the personal property of a property owner/taxpayer if the property 
owner/taxpayer has made the proper filing required by statute and 
regulation?

3. 
Did the State Board of Equalization properly apply the 25% valuation increase 
limitation contained in Section 3, Chapter 73, S.L. 1988?

4. 
Is there substantial evidence to support the decision of the State Board of 
Equalization?

5. 
Were the actions of the County Assessor contrary to the uniform and equal 
provisions of the Wyoming and United States Constitution; and/or the First 
Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 20 of the 
Wyoming Constitution?

[¶4]      The State Board 
of Equalization was granted leave to intervene, presenting these 
issues:

1. 
Is the decision of the Wyoming State Board of Equalization on review of a Park 
County Board of Equalization decision, unlawful pursuant to W.S. 16-3-114(c) 
(1977 as amended)?

2. 
Has the Wyoming State Board of Equalization properly applied Chapter 73, Session 
Laws of Wyoming 1988, in reviewing the change in assessed value for the property 
of TCI between 1991 and 1992?

[¶5]      Following an 
order granting the State Board of Equalization's motion for leave to intervene, 
this court directed the parties to brief two additional issues. Those issues 
concern the authority of the county assessor to seek judicial review, including 
who ought properly to be the appellant in such a review if the county assessor 
lacks such authority and, additionally, what role, if any, the Wyoming State 
Board of Equalization should play in an appeal such as 
this.

FACTS

[¶6]      TCI owns three 
cable television systems in Park County. On May 12, 1992, the Park County 
Assessor sent to TCI its annual assessment of TCI's property. On June 4, 1992, 
TCI appealed the assessment to the Park County Board of Equalization (County 
Board), objecting to the valuation methodology employed by the assessor. The 
County Board upheld the assessor's valuation of TCI's property, and on November 
19, 1992, TCI appealed the County Board's decision to the Wyoming State Board of 
Equalization (State Board). The State Board vacated the decision of the County 
Board and remanded for revaluation and assessment of TCI's property for the 1992 
tax year.

[¶7]      On August 16, 
1993, the Park County Assessor filed a Petition for Review in district 
court. On September 1, 1993, the district court, in accordance with WYO.R.APP.P. 
12.09(b), certified the case to this court for review.

DISCUSSION

[¶8]      "The right to 
judicial review of administrative decisions is entirely statutory, and agency 
actions are not reviewable absent statutory authority." Casper Iron & 
Metal, Inc. v. Unemp. Ins. Comm'n, 845 P.2d 387, 391 (Wyo. 1993) (quoting 
Sellers v. Employment Sec. Comm'n of Wyo., 760 P.2d 394, 395 (Wyo. 
1988)). WYO. STAT. § 39-1-306 (1990) outlines who may appeal decisions of the 
State Board of Equalization. It provides:

Any 
person including the state of Wyoming aggrieved by any order issued by the 
board, or any county board of equalization whose decision has been reversed or 
modified by the state board of equalization, may appeal the decision of the 
board to the district court of the county in which the property or some part 
thereof is situated.

[¶9]      Appellant 
contends that, as county assessor, he is an aggrieved person within the meaning 
of the statute and therefore has standing to seek review. We disagree. Person is 
defined at WYO. STAT. § 39-1-101(a)(xiii) (1990) to mean

an 
individual, partnership, corporation, company or any other type of association 
and any agent or officer of any partnership, corporation, company or other type 
of association.

[¶10]   Appellant sought review of the 
State Board's decision in his official capacity as Park County Assessor, not as 
an individual. A county officer is not included in the definition of 
person set forth above, and the plain language of WYO. STAT. § 39-1-306 
does not otherwise provide the county assessor with a right of appeal from the 
State Board's decision.

[¶11]   Appellant next asserts the Wyoming 
Administrative Procedure Act (WAPA) provides him with the right to seek judicial 
review. WYO. STAT. § 16-3-114(a) (1990) provides, in part:

[A]ny 
person aggrieved or adversely affected in fact by a final decision of an agency 
in a contested case, or by other agency action or inaction, or any person 
affected in fact by a rule adopted by an agency, is entitled to judicial review 
* * *.

WAPA 
defines a person as

any 
individual, partnership, corporation, association, municipality, government 
subdivision or public or private organization of any character other than an 
agency.

WYO. 
STAT. § 16-3-101(b)(vii) (1990) (emphasis added).

An 
agency is defined as

any 
authority, bureau, board, commission, department, division, officer or employee 
of the state, a county, city or town or other political subdivision of the 
state, except the governing body of a city or town, the state legislature and 
the judiciary.

WYO. 
STAT. § 16-3-101(b)(i).

[¶12]   Appellant contends he is a person 
aggrieved or adversely affected consistent with the above definitions, because 
he is both an individual and a governmental subdivision. We reject both 
contentions.

[¶13]   The plain language of the 
definition assigned the term person excludes appellant from that 
classification. The term is defined to specifically exclude agencies. The term 
agency includes county officers, and the county assessor is a county 
officer. See WYO. STAT. § 18-3-102(a)(i) (1977 & Supp. 1993), which 
includes county assessors within the list of county officers required to execute 
bonds.

[¶14]   WYO.R.APP.P. 12 provides the same 
right to judicial review of administrative action as WAPA, and is therefore of 
no assistance to appellant. See WYO.R.APP.P. 12.01 and 
12.02.

[¶15]   We find our conclusion that 
appellant lacks standing to seek judicial review of a State Board decision 
supported by WYO. STAT. § 39-2-302(e) and the legislature's statement of its 
purpose for enacting that provision and WYO. STAT. § 39-1-306. We set forth 
above the language of § 39-1-306 and concluded it does not afford a county 
assessor the right to seek judicial review of a decision by the State Board. 
WYO. STAT. § 39-2-302(e) provides, "A county assessor may appeal any decision or 
order of the county board of equalization to the state board of 
equalization."

[¶16]   In enacting subsection (e) the 
legislature clarified that it did not intend for county assessors to have the 
right of appeal from State Board decisions. The enacting clause 
reads:

AN 
ACT to amend W.S. 39-1-306 and 39-2-302 by creating a new subsection (e) 
relating to property taxation; clarifying that county boards of equalization may 
appeal decisions of the state board of equalization; providing that county 
assessors may appeal decisions of the county boards of equalization; and 
providing for an effective date.

1986 
WYO. SESS. LAWS, ch. 7 § 1.

CONCLUSION

[¶17]   Having found no statutory authority 
granting appellant the right to seek review of a Wyoming State Board of 
Equalization decision, we dismiss the appeal for lack of 
standing.