Case Title: Town of Victory v. State

Citation: 174 Vt. 539, 814 A.2d 369

Docket Number: 2001-410

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2002-10-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
Town of Victory v. State (2001-410); 174 Vt. 539; 814 A.2d 369

[Filed 02-Oct-2002]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2001-410

                              MARCH TERM, 2002


  Town of Victory, et al.	       }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
       v.	                       }	Essex Superior Court
                                       }
  State of Vermont, et al.	       }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. 70-12-00 Excv

                                                Trial Judge: Dennis R. Pearson

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       In this property tax case, plaintiff Town of Victory appeals from a
  summary judgment in favor of the State of Vermont.  On appeal, the Town
  argues that: (1) the court erred by dismissing its claims for estoppel or
  equitable tolling of the 21-day statute of limitations for appraisals of
  land in the payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) program; and (2) the court
  prematurely disposed of its claim for relief with respect to current use
  program land by converting the State's motion to dismiss into a motion for
  summary judgment and not allowing full discovery of facts essential to
  proving its case.  We affirm as to the first claim of error, but reverse
  and remand for further proceedings as to the second claim of error.

       The State of Vermont through the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR)
  owns approximately 19,000 acres of land in the Town of Victory.  The land
  is comprised of the Victory State Forest and the Victory Basin Wildlife
  Management Area.  In 1981, ANR placed 8724 acres of this land in the use
  value appraisal program, commonly known as the current use program, under
  32 V.S.A. §§ 3751-3763a.

       This dispute arises because land owned by the State of Vermont is
  exempt from property taxes.  See 32 V.S.A. § 3802(1).  The Legislature has,
  however, enacted a payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) program for state-owned
  land.  With respect to land held by ANR, the payment depends on whether the
  land is enrolled in the current use program.  The land is first appraised
  at fair market value by the director of property valuation and review
  (PV&R).  Id. § 3708(a). (FN1)   If the land is not enrolled in the current
  use program, the State must pay one percent of the appraised value in lieu
  of property taxes.  Id. § 3708(a)(1).  A town aggrieved by an appraisal of
  the property can, within twenty-one days of receiving notice of the
  appraisal, appeal it to superior court.  Id. § 3708(d).
        
       The first issue relates to land not enrolled in the current use
  program.  Each year 1989 through 

 

  1998, the director of PV&R set an appraisal value on the ANR land in
  Victory and notified the Town of the value.  Each of these years the State
  made PILOT payments to Victory which the Town accepted and never appealed
  within the 21-day period permitted by § 3708(d).

       In December 2000, the Town brought this action in superior court
  alleging in relevant part that during the years 1989 through 1998 the
  director of PV&R had greatly undervalued the property and concealed from
  the Town that he had "knowingly, intentionally, maliciously, fraudulently
  and repeatedly" disregarded all proper appraisal methods in order that the
  State would pay less to the Town than it owed.  The State moved to dismiss
  these claims because they were not brought for any year within the 21 day
  appeal period established in 32 V.S.A. § 3708(d).

       The superior court first concluded that § 3708(d) provided the
  exclusive remedy for the Town's claims and that the Town could not employ
  it because the Town failed to appeal within 21 days.  The court assumed,
  however, that the Town could get around the limitation period through
  equitable estoppel or equitable tolling, but, after allowing the Town to
  present further evidence, held that neither of these doctrines apply and
  granted summary judgment to the State on this issue.  The Town argues here
  that they do. (FN2) 

       We agree that § 3708(d) represents the exclusive remedy for the Town's
  appeal and that the appeal is barred by the 21-day time limit unless the
  Town can find a legal justification for its tardy action.  See Brennan v.
  Town of Colchester, 169 Vt. 175, 177,