Title: Murray v. City of Burlington

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Murray v. City of Burlington (2011-111)
 
2012 VT 11
 
[Filed 07-Feb-2012]
 
ENTRY
  ORDER
 
2012 VT 11
 
SUPREME COURT
  DOCKET NO. 2011-111
 
OCTOBER TERM, 2011
 
Margaret Murray
}
APPEALED FROM:
 
 
}
}
 
     v.
}
Superior Court, Chittenden Unit,
  
 
}
Civil Division
 
}
 
City of Burlington
}
DOCKET NO. S1239-10 CnC
 
 
 
 
 
Trial Judge: Helen M. Toor
 
In the above-entitled
cause, the Clerk will enter:
 
¶ 1.            
Taxpayer appeals an order from the civil division of the superior court
dismissing her tax abatement appeal.  On appeal to this Court, taxpayer
argues that the superior court erroneously concluded that she could not appeal
the abatement decision because she failed to challenge the valuation of the
property in the appraisal process.  We conclude that taxpayer's abatement
appeal to the superior court is not foreclosed by her failure to appeal the
valuation of her property, and reverse and remand.
¶ 2.            
A motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, V.R.C.P. 12(b), will
not be granted "unless it appears beyond doubt' that there exist no facts or
circumstances that would entitle the plaintiff to relief."  Amiot v. Ames, 166 Vt. 288, 291, 693 A.2d 675, 677 (1997) (quoting Levinsky v.
Diamond, 140 Vt. 595, 600-01, 442 A.2d 1277, 1280-81 (1982)); see Conley
v. Crisafulli, 2010 VT 38, ¶ 3, 188 Vt. 11, 999 A.2d 677 (reciting standard for review of dismissal for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction).  On appeal, we assume as true the nonmoving party's factual
allegations and accept all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from those
facts.  Amiot, 166 Vt. at 291, 693 A.2d  at 677.  
¶ 3.            
So viewed, the relevant facts are as follows.  Taxpayer owns
property on Shelburne Street in the City of Burlington, where a cleaning
business has operated in the past.  In 1994, the mortgagee of the property
conducted tests on the property and apparently discovered petroleum-based
contamination.  Taxpayer lacked the resources to conduct her own tests and
her efforts to appeal the tax valuations in 1995 and 1996 were
unsuccessful.  In 1995, taxpayer also filed an abatement action.  The
Board of Abatement reduced the appraisal by $10,000 to $155,300, but declined
to find the property worthless.  
¶ 4.            
From 1995 onward, the City continued to assess taxes on the
property.  Taxpayer did not pay the taxes and a substantial tax lien
accrued, but the City did not initiate a tax sale to recover the debt. 
Taxpayer eventually obtained enough funds to conduct her own site testing and
the resulting analysis showed petroleum contamination.  In 2010, taxpayer
filed a new request with the Board of Abatement.  The Board abated the
taxes accrued earlier than 1994, but denied the request as to the remaining
taxes.
¶ 5.            
Taxpayer appealed the denial to the civil division pursuant to Vermont
Rule of Civil Procedure 75, which provides for review of governmental action
when such review is not available under Rule 74 and "is otherwise available by
law."  V.R.C.P. 75.  Her complaint alleged,
among other things, that the abatement procedure denied her due process of law,
that abatement was appropriate because collection of taxes on a worthless
property amounted to a violation of equal protection, and that the Board did
not act impartially. 
¶ 6.            
The City moved to dismiss taxpayer's appeal in the civil division for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. 
V.R.C.P. 12(b)(1), (6).  As to jurisdiction, the
City argued that because taxpayer's arguments wholly rested on her assertion
that the property is valueless, her proper remedy was through a tax appeal and
Rule 75 could not be used to bypass this direct avenue of relief.  In the
alternative, the City argued that taxpayer failed to allege any facts that
would entitle her to relief under the abatement statute because she did not
demonstrate that the taxes were illegal or that the board acted impartially.
 
¶ 7.            
The trial court granted the motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds,
ruling that by choosing not to appeal the valuation of her property through the
tax assessment process taxpayer had failed to exhaust her statutory
remedies.  Thus, the court concluded that she was precluded from seeking
relief through Rule 75.  Taxpayer appeals.
¶ 8.            
This jurisdictional question was recently decided by Garbitelli
v. Town of Brookfield, 2011 VT 122, __ Vt. __, __ A.3d __.  In Garbitelli, we clarified that tax abatement
decisions may be appealed to the civil division under Rule 75 because the
abatement statute does not designate a specific route of appeal.  Id. ¶ 5.  We further held that such a
proceeding is typically confined to an on-the-record review of whether the
board abused its decision in denying abatement.  Id.
¶¶ 8-9, 14.
¶ 9.            
This right of appeal is not extinguished because the taxpayer failed to
appeal the valuation of the real property at issue through the appraisal
process.  While the taxpayer in Garbitelli
had challenged at least one of the relevant tax assessments, this was not
essential to the right to seek abatement.  Id. ¶ 2 (noting
that taxpayer appealed 2007 assessment and moved to abate 2007 and 2008
assessments).  Tax abatement and tax appraisal are two separate processes
with different statutory mandates.  The tax appraisal process aims to
attach a fair market value to all properties so that each taxpayer pays their
fair share of taxes.  See Allen v. Town of W. Windsor, 2004 VT 51,
¶ 2, 177 Vt. 1, 852 A.2d 627 ("Vermont law requires that property
appraisals for tax assessment purposes reflect a property's fair market
value.").  Within the confines of the tax assessment valuation, there is
no authority to abate taxes that are due on property properly appraised at fair
market value.  See Town of Barnet v. Cent. Vt. Pub. Serv. Corp.,
131 Vt. 578, 582, 313 A.2d 392, 394 (1973) (explaining that tax appraisers do
not have authority to abate taxes).  On the other hand, a request for
abatement does not depend on the property's fair market value.  The board
is authorized to abate taxes, interest, and collection fees for a variety of
reasons, including when there was "manifest error or a mistake of the listers."  24 V.S.A. § 1535(a)(4);
see 24 V.S.A. App. § 3-42 (allowing abatement of taxes under Burlington
City Charter "whenever the same are illegal or in the judgment of the board
cannot be collected or are manifestly unjust").  
¶ 10.         In
this case, taxpayer did not attempt to appeal a tax assessment using Rule
75.  Cf. In re City of Barre, 134 Vt. 519, 521, 365 A.2d 519,
520-21 (1976) (per curiam) (concluding that statutory
appeal process for tax assessment cannot be bypassed by using a horizontal
appeal to the superior court).  Taxpayer sought to appeal the board's
abatement denial and was entitled to Rule 75 review in the civil
division.  
¶ 11.         On
appeal, taxpayer argues that under Chapin Hill Estates, Inc. v. Town of
Stowe, she is entitled to present additional evidence in her Rule 75
appeal.  131 Vt. 10, 13, 298 A.2d 815, 817 (1972). 
As we explained in Garbitelli, an abatement
appeal to the civil division through Rule 75 is in the nature of
certiorari.  2011 VT 122, ¶ 6.  It is
an on-the-record proceeding, and the necessity of admitting additional evidence
is subject to the trial court's discretion depending on the issues raised and
the state of the record.  Id. ¶ 8. 
Therefore, we make no judgment on this question at this stage and leave it to
the trial court to consider in the first instance.
¶ 12.         The
City argues that, even if review was proper, taxpayer's complaint should be
dismissed for failure to state a claim.  We address this question because
we may affirm the grant of a motion to dismiss "on any appropriate
ground."  Bock v. Gold, 2008 VT 81, ¶ 4, 184
Vt. 575, 959 A.2d 990 (mem.).  The City
characterizes taxpayer's abatement request as entirely dependent on her claim
that her property is valueless and thus insufficient to demonstrate the
necessary facts to allow relief under the abatement statute, such as that the
taxes are illegal or manifestly unjust.  Motions to dismiss for failure to
state a claim are "disfavored and should be rarely granted."  Id. 
"[T]he threshold a plaintiff must cross in order to meet our notice-pleading
standard is exceedingly low."  Id. (quotation omitted).  
¶ 13.         Given
our liberal pleading requirements, we conclude that taxpayer has made a
sufficient showing to survive dismissal.  To be sure, taxpayer's abatement
complaint quite logically involved the value of her property.  When taken
as a whole, the allegations involved a request for abatement insofar as she
alleged that her taxes were illegally assessed because the City knew that the
property was contaminated, but treated it otherwise.  Further, she claimed
that the taxes were manifestly unjust because the City's abatement process was
not impartial and lacked due process.  While these allegations are not
well fleshed out, "[t]he complaint need not give a specific and detailed
statement of the facts constituting the cause of action," id. ¶ 8
(quotation omitted), and she was entitled to a superior court review of whether
the Board's denial of relief was an abuse of discretion.  
¶ 14.         We
emphasize that a taxpayer's request for abatement is not a substitute for a
property tax appeal.  As we stated in Garbitelli,
"the whole point of tax abatement is to allow the Board to abate taxes for
reasons other than that the property was assessed above fair market value."
 2011 VT 122, ¶ 17.  The Board's decision is
"entirely permissive," and abatement is not required even if a taxpayer falls
within one of the categories allowing for abatement.  Id.
¶ 14.  The superior court's review of the board's decision is
"necessarily narrow."  In re Town of Bennington,
161 Vt. 573, 574, 641 A.2d 1331, 1332 (1993) (mem.).
 Thus, taxpayer's Rule 75 appeal of the Board of Abatement's denial of her
request for relief is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
 On remand, it is appellant's burden to show that the Board abused its
discretion in denying the abatement request.  
Reversed
and remanded.
 
 
BY THE COURT:
 
 
 
 
 
 
Paul L. Reiber,
  Chief Justice
 
 
 
 
 
John A. Dooley, Associate
  Justice
 
 
 
 
 
Denise R. Johnson,
  Associate Justice
 
 
 
 
 
Marilyn S. Skoglund, Associate Justice
 
 
 
 
 
Brian L. Burgess, Associate
  Justice