DA 20-0195

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

2020 MT 277

K & J INVESTMENTS, LLC,

 Petitioner, Plaintiff and Appellant,

 v.

THE FLATHEAD COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,

 Respondent and Appellee,

 and

FLATHEAD COUNTY TREASURER,

 Defendant and Appellee.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District,

In and For the County of Flathead, Cause No. DV-19-133C

Honorable Heidi J. Ulbricht, Presiding Judge

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

For Appellant:

Anne G. Biby, Hash, O’Brien, Biby & Murray, PLLP, Kalispell, Montana

For Appellee:

David W. Randall, Flathead County Deputy Attorney, Kalispell, Montana

Submitted on Briefs: August 19, 2020

 Decided: November 4, 2020

Filed:

__________________________________________

Clerk

q3,,---, 6mal•-.— 4(

11/04/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0195
2

Justice Beth Baker delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶1 K&J Investments, LLC, (“K&J”) appeals the Eleventh Judicial District Court’s 

dismissal of its petition and complaint for judicial review, rescission, and unjust enrichment 

against The Flathead County Board of Commissioners (“Commissioners”) and Flathead 

County Treasurer (“Treasurer”) (collectively “County”). K&J challenged the 

Commissioners’ denial of its application for tax refund and abatement due to alleged 

erroneous property assessments, and it now appeals the District Court’s ruling that it lacked

subject matter jurisdiction because K&J did not follow the required process for seeking

reassessment and exhausting administrative remedies. We hold that the District Court 

properly dismissed all claims for want of jurisdiction.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 K&J is an investment company that pursues investments in tax sale certificates. 

Under the Montana property tax lien statutes, a person may acquire property by paying the 

owner’s delinquent taxes and purchasing a tax sale certificate from the county in which the 

property is located. To purchase a tax sale certificate, an investor must pay all delinquent 

taxes, penalties, interest, and costs associated with the property; to retain its senior status 

on the property, the investor must continue to pay these amounts for subsequent years for 

which the taxes remain delinquent. Should the delinquent owner of the property not pay 

these amounts within the redemption period, the investor will receive a tax deed to the 

property, which creates a new title extinguishing the interests of the original owner. 

See generally Tit. 15, ch. 17, MCA.
3

¶3 In September 2014, K&J purchased a tax sale certificate from Flathead County for 

the property at issue, identified as Parcel No. 0192625, for $1,512.68. This initial tax 

assignment was recorded on September 29, 2014. From 2014 to 2017, the property was 

classified as residential property, and the resulting taxes for those years amounted to a total 

of $8,266, which K&J paid as each tax bill became due. K&J received the tax deed to the 

property during the summer of 2018. It then employed a surveyor to mark the boundary 

corners of the lot. The surveyor advised K&J that there was no suitable building site on or 

access to the property because of its topography. K&J’s further investigation revealed that 

the supposed improvements included in the Department of Revenue’s (“DOR”) 2012 and 

2013 property appraisals were nonexistent. The previous property owner never notified 

the DOR, the agency responsible for conducting appraisals and assessments, of the

inaccuracies.

¶4 K&J notified the DOR of its findings in November 2018. The DOR stated that it

became aware of the problem from its new assessment of a nearby lot on the same plat. 

K&J requested that the DOR reappraise and reassess K&J’s lot. It also sought to rescind 

the tax sale certificate with the Treasurer, who declined the request. K&J filed an 

Application for Property Tax Refund or Abatement with the Commissioners on 

November 9, 2018, invoking § 15-16-603(1)(a), MCA. That section requires the 

Commissioners to refund a tax paid “more than once or erroneously or illegally collected.” 

K&J requested a full refund for the years 2013-2016, a partial refund for 2017, and an 

abatement for a portion of 2017 and for all of 2018, claiming that the DOR erroneously

appraised the property as suitable for building. To support its claim, K&J provided
4

photographs of the property, a statement explaining the DOR’s reappraisal and 

reassessment of a nearby lot on the same plat, and a statement explaining the history of its 

own lot. In a letter to the Commissioners regarding K&J’s application, however, the DOR 

stated that it had “received no documentation regarding any building restrictions” and thus 

had “no recommendation for a property tax refund.”

¶5 The Commissioners held a hearing on January 22, 2019, at which K&J presented 

evidence of the DOR reappraisal and reassessment of the neighboring lot. The 

Commissioners denied K&J’s application for refund and abatement, reasoning that 

“[n]o documentation was submitted stating the MT Dept. of Revenue agrees the taxes 

should be reduced and no documentation was submitted stating the surveyor believes the 

lot is not buildable.” 

¶6 K&J filed its petition for judicial review in the District Court on February 15, 2019,

seeking to reverse the Commissioners’ denial of tax refund and abatement pursuant to 

§ 15-16-604, MCA. K&J included a complaint for rescission of the tax sale certificate and 

sought relief for all taxes paid under the theory of unjust enrichment. K&J attached to the 

petition and complaint evidence of the reappraisal and reassessment of the nearby lot and 

its own surveyor’s opinion. Several weeks after K&J filed its complaint, the DOR issued 

a new appraisal for 2019, noting that “consideration was given to the property’s topography 

for 2019.” The new appraisal reflected a value of $30,590, compared to the 2017 and 2018 
5

appraisals showing a value of $230,250. The DOR has not reappraised the property for the 

years 2013-2018, and it declined to do so upon K&J’s recent request.

1

¶7 The County filed a motion to dismiss K&J’s petition for judicial review, alleging 

(1) that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to grant relief based on K&J’s failure to follow 

the administrative appeal process required to cure an alleged erroneous DOR assessment

and (2) that the DOR was a necessary party to the action pursuant to § 15-8-115(1), MCA,

and K&J failed to name the DOR as a defendant. On December 26, 2019, the 

District Court issued an Order dismissing the petition and complaint2 pursuant to 

Mont. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). K&J moved to vacate the Order; the motion was deemed denied 

after the time for ruling expired. This appeal followed.

STANDARDS OF REVIEW

¶8 We review a district court’s interpretation of the law—here, its determination that 

it lacked subject matter jurisdiction—to determine whether it is correct. Schuster v. 

Nw. Energy Co., 2013 MT 364, ¶ 6, 373 Mont. 54, 314 P.3d 650. We examine whether, 

 

1

In a post-judgment motion to vacate the District Court’s Order, K&J presented an affidavit that 

indicated it had:

met with two representatives of the Department of Revenue and asked them that, if 

the appropriate request would be made, if they would reappraise K&J’s property

for the years 2013, 2015 and 2017 under Section 15-7-102(3) or Section 15-8-601.

Your affiant was advised that the Department of Revenue would not honor a request 

to make such reappraisal under Section 15-7-102(3) or Section 15-8-601 since the 

time to do so had expired and only the property owner at the time the appraisal was 

made could make such a request.

2 Although the Order mentioned only the petition for judicial review, the record shows the 

District Court Clerk’s indication that the court intended to dismiss the petition and complaint in its 

entirety.
6

taking the facts alleged as true and viewing them most favorably to the plaintiff, the 

district court would have subject matter jurisdiction to consider the claims. U.S. Nat’l Bank 

v. Mont. Dep’t of Revenue, 175 Mont. 205, 207, 573 P.2d 188, 190 (1977). “If the court 

determines at any time that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the 

action.” Mont. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). “Courts ‘have an independent obligation to determine 

whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any 

party.’” Schuster, ¶ 7 (quoting Stanley v. Lemire, 2006 MT 304, ¶ 32, 334 Mont. 489, 

148 P.3d 643). Thus, a court may address the issue of subject matter jurisdiction 

sua sponte. Stanley, ¶ 32 (citing State v. Reeder, 2004 MT 244, ¶ 4, 323 Mont. 15, 

97 P.3d 1104).

DISCUSSION

¶9 K&J filed its application for refund and abatement of property taxes with the 

Commissioners pursuant to § 15-16-603(1), MCA. That section provides in relevant part 

that “a board of county commissioners shall order a refund: (a) on a tax, penalty, interest, 

or cost paid more than once or erroneously or illegally collected.” The Commissioners 

denied K&J’s application based on the distinction between its duties and the duties of the 

DOR; because the County did not have any indication from the DOR that the property had 

been reassessed for the years in question, the Commissioners could not conclude that the 

taxes were “erroneously . . . collected.” On appeal, K&J contends that the District Court 

had jurisdiction under § 15-16-604, MCA, to review the Commissioners’ denial of its 

application for refund and abatement of taxes under § 15-16-603(1)(a), MCA. K&J

additionally argues that the court had general jurisdiction to hear its rescission and unjust 
7

enrichment claims. The Commissioners argue that the District Court properly dismissed 

the petition and complaint for want of jurisdiction because K&J failed to exhaust its 

administrative remedies.

3

1. Did the District Court err in dismissing K&J’s petition for judicial review for lack 

of subject matter jurisdiction?

¶10 “Subject-matter jurisdiction is the power of a court to hear and adjudicate a 

particular type of controversy. Montana courts derive subject-matter jurisdiction from 

constitutional and statutory authority.” Harrington v. Energy W. Inc., 2015 MT 233, ¶ 13, 

380 Mont. 298, 356 P.3d 441 (internal citations omitted). District courts are courts of 

general jurisdiction, but only the Legislature may provide them subject matter jurisdiction 

for direct review of administrative decisions. Mont. Const. art. VII, § 4(2); see also

N. Plains Res. Council v. Bd. of Health & Envtl. Scis., 184 Mont. 466, 471, 603 P.2d 684, 

687 (1979).

¶11 The Montana Constitution vests the State with the sole authority to appraise, assess, 

and equalize the valuation of all property taxed in Montana. Mont. Const. art. VIII, § 3. 

The Constitution requires local taxing jurisdictions to “use the assessed valuation of 

property established by the state.” Mont. Const. art. VIII, § 4. Finally, the Constitution 

tasks the Legislature with creating independent appeal procedures for taxpayer grievances 

 

3 K&J’s Opening Brief also argues that the District Court erred in permitting time for ruling to 

expire on its Rule 60 Motion. We decline to address this issue because K&J failed to provide 

adequate explanation of its argument on appeal. Stevens v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., 2010 MT 282, 

¶ 85, 358 Mont. 474, 247 P.3d 244 (citations omitted) (noting that “it is not [this Court’s] obligation 

to conduct legal research, guess at precise positions, or develop legal analysis that may lend 

support to the parties’ positions”).
8

about appraisal, assessment, equalization, and tax determinations. Mont. Const. art. VIII, 

§ 7; see also § 15-15-102, MCA (providing for application to the County Tax Appeal Board

(“CTAB”) for reduction in property valuation); § 15-7-102, MCA (providing for DOR 

notice to property owner of classification, market value, and taxable value of property and 

a process for owner objection and appeal to the CTAB and then to the State Tax Appeal 

Board (“STAB”)). 

¶12 The Legislature has designed a detailed property tax process around these general

constitutional delegations, maintaining the DOR’s responsibility to appraise and assess

taxable property and the counties’ responsibilities to collect property taxes and to distribute

monies to taxing jurisdictions. Zinvest, LLC v. Gunnersfield Enters., 2017 MT 284, ¶ 14, 

389 Mont. 334, 405 P.3d 1270; see also § 15-7-101, MCA (assigning the DOR the duty to 

classify all taxable lands, appraise taxable city and town lots, and appraise taxable rural 

and urban improvements); § 15-8-101, MCA (assigning to DOR the “full charge of 

assessing all property subject to taxation . . .”). We described in Zinvest the difference 

between the processes of “assessment” and “taxation” and the entities that administer them: 

Although the entire process . . . is often referred to as ‘taxation,’ there are 

distinct stages. ‘Assessment is the process by which persons subject to 

taxation are listed, their property described, and its value ascertained and 

stated. Taxation consists in determining the rate of the levy and imposing 

it.’ Under current law, assessment is entirely the responsibility of the 

Department. Collection and enforcement are the responsibility of county 

treasurers.

Zinvest, ¶ 17 (internal citations omitted). Where a tax is erroneously collected, the County 

refunds the payment of taxes under the authority of § 15-16-603(1)(a), MCA. But if the 

amount of tax collected was based on an error, for example, in the “description of . . . real 
9

property or improvements,” that process starts with the DOR under § 15-8-601, MCA, and 

the County issues a refund under § 15-16-603(1)(c), MCA, following the DOR’s 

determination. 

¶13 The language of these code provisions reaches back to the first legislative act 

following the 1889 Montana Constitution’s ratification. The phrase “paid more than once 

or erroneously or illegally collected” found in § 15-16-603(1)(a), MCA, appeared in

An Act Concerning Revenue, 2d Leg. Assemb., Reg. Sess., § 145 (March 6, 1891) 

(“Revenue Act”) (“[a]ny taxes, per centum, and costs, paid more than once or erroneously 

or illegally collected, may by order of the Board of County Commissioners, be refunded 

by the County Treasurer . . .”). As the District Court observed, this language was specific 

to irregularities in the collection of taxes, while §§ 146 and 147 of the Revenue Act 

addressed duplicates of or irregularities in assessments, thereby separating these distinct 

processes. Revenue Act, § 146 (more than one assessment), § 147 (discovery of irregular 

assessment). At that time, the counties were tasked with both processes—with the county 

boards of commissioners additionally serving as county boards of equalization.

Revenue Act, §§ 60-61. But the adoption of the 1972 Montana Constitution led to 

elimination of all references to county boards of equalization, and it split the two processes

between the counties and the State. Mont. Const. art. VIII, § 3. The Legislature centralized

within the DOR all appraisal and assessment duties relating to property taxation. See §§ 15-

7-101, 15-8-101, MCA; see also H.B. 50, Statement of Intent, Ch. 27, 53d Leg., Sp. Sess. 

(November 1993) (recognizing the 1972 Constitution’s delegation of authority to the State 

for appraisal, assessment, and valuation of property for property tax administration, stating 
10

the intent for the DOR to assume this duty, and retaining county assessors to assist the

DOR as its agents in carrying out this duty). 

¶14 The statute’s plain language and context thus make clear that the administrative

pathway for property assessment, reassessment, and assessment appeals generally is a 

person’s exclusive remedy for alleged excessive or erroneous assessments. See Keller v. 

Dep’t of Revenue, 182 Mont. 478, 484, 597 P.2d 736, 739-40 (1979) (citing Larson v. State, 

166 Mont. 449, 456-57, 534 P.2d 854, 858 (1975)); Dep’t of Revenue v. Countryside Vill., 

205 Mont. 51, 64-66, 667 P.2d 936, 942-43 (1983). Although we have recognized limited 

exceptions where fraud or the adoption of a “fundamentally wrong principle of assessment”

is shown, those exceptions do not apply where, as here, “the principal thrust of the 

complaint is aimed at the amount of valuation and not the method of valuation.”

Devoe v. Missoula County, 226 Mont. 372, 376, 735 P.2d 1115, 1117 (1987) 

(quoting Larson, 166 Mont. at 457, 534 P.2d at 858). 

¶15 The Commissioners may issue a tax refund based on alleged erroneous assessments 

only after the DOR, the CTAB, or the STAB determines that a refund is owed. Instead of 

following this pathway, K&J would have us find a direct remedy available from the 

Commissioners under § 15-16-603(1), MCA, and a judicial remedy under 

§ 15-16-604, MCA; but these provisions do not allow an end run around the DOR or the 

boards of tax appeal. As K&J acknowledges, the DOR declined to retroactively revise its 

assessment of the property because the property was not “under the ownership or control 

of the same person who owned or controlled it at the time it . . . was erroneously assessed.” 

Section 15-8-601, MCA. Absent direction from the DOR, § 15-16-603(1), MCA, provides
11

no authority to the Commissioners; it follows that the District Court cannot obtain 

jurisdiction for judicial review under § 15-16-604, MCA. See also Devoe, 

226 Mont. at 376, 735 P.2d at 1117 (quoting Larson, 166 Mont. at 457, 534 P.2d at 858) 

(“[t]ax appeal boards are particularly suited for settling disputes over the appropriate 

valuation of a given piece of property or a particular improvement, and the judiciary cannot 

properly interfere with that function”).

¶16 K&J argues that “the reason giving rise to the erroneous tax is totally immaterial” 

and that the Commissioners must have authority to assess property value because the 

Legislature’s conference of jurisdiction also necessarily confers “all the means necessary 

for the exercise of such jurisdiction.” Section 3-1-113, MCA. This argument overlooks 

the plain language analysis of the governing statutes and our obligation to consider those 

statutes in the context of the entire statutory scheme. See Albright v. State, 281 Mont. 196, 

206, 933 P.2d 815, 821 (1997) (“when we construe a statute, ‘the whole act must be read 

together and where there are several provisions or particulars, a construction is, if possible, 

to be adopted that will give effect to it all.’ . . . ‘[T]he Court must harmonize statutes 

relating to the same subject, giving effect to each.’”) (internal citations omitted).

¶17 We agree with the District Court that the cases K&J cites to support its arguments 

are entirely distinguishable. Christofferson v. Chouteau County, 105 Mont. 577, 

74 P.2d 427 (1937), did not involve erroneous property valuation but the erroneous 

collection of a tax where the county treasurer failed to cancel tax assessments as directed. 

Christofferson, 105 Mont. at 579, 74 P.2d at 428. Unlike Christofferson, the process of 

valuation and who may conduct it are directly at issue here. The case provides no support 
12

for K&J’s argument that the Commissioners or the District Court may determine 

independently a reappraisal or reassessment. 

¶18 Although Dep’t of Revenue v. Jarrett, 216 Mont. 189, 700 P.2d 985 (1985), did 

involve an erroneous property valuation, it too is distinguishable; there, neither the county 

commissioners nor the district court were asked to reappraise or reassess the property. In 

Jarrett, the DOR reappraised the property and provided a reduced assessment value. 

Jarrett, 216 Mont. at 191, 700 P.2d at 986. Upon receipt of the petitioner’s application for 

tax refund and the DOR’s input regarding its reason for the reduced assessment, the county 

commissioners denied the application, concluding that the value was decreased due to a

change in development pattern, not to an erroneous assessment. Jarrett, 216 Mont. at 191, 

700 P.2d at 986. Following appeals to the CTAB and then to the STAB, which both

reversed and held in favor of the petitioner, the DOR sought judicial review. 

Jarrett, 216 Mont. at 191, 700 P.2d at 986. Thus, neither the county commissioners nor 

the district court undertook a property reappraisal or reassessment, and the taxpayer 

followed the proper appeal process. If anything, Jarrett demonstrates the proper procedure 

for seeking tax refunds due to erroneous assessments and makes clear that K&J’s approach 

was flawed.

¶19 The District Court correctly concluded that § 15-16-603(1)(a), MCA,

“does not support the argument that a board of county commissioners can substitute its 

valuation of real property for that of the DOR, and such an interpretation would run afoul 

of the centralization of the appraisal power in the hands of the DOR.” 

Section 15-16-603(1)(a), MCA, does not allow county commissioners to hear grievances 
13

regarding appraisals or assessments of property for tax purposes. The District Court 

properly dismissed K&J’s petition for judicial review for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

2. Did the District Court err in dismissing K&J’s complaint for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction?

¶20 Our disposition of issue one controls the resolution of this issue. Because all claims 

are based on the same set of facts and allegations, the claims for rescission and 

unjust enrichment would require the District Court to make a determination that the 

2013-2018 DOR appraisals and assessments were erroneous—again, without any DOR 

reappraisal or reassessment or ruling from the CTAB or the STAB. The District Court 

cannot make these determinations without exhaustion of remedies through the DOR, the 

CTAB, and the STAB. Keller, 182 Mont. at 484, 597 P.2d at 739-40.

¶21 The District Court thus properly dismissed the unjust enrichment and recission 

claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to a failure to exhaust the relevant

administrative remedies.

CONCLUSION

¶22 We conclude that § 15-16-603(1)(a), MCA, does not grant the Commissioners 

authority to make determinations regarding property appraisals or assessments. Without a 

determination by the DOR or exhaustion of remedies through the County and State Tax 

Appeal Boards, § 15-16-604, MCA, did not grant the District Court authority to consider 

K&J’s claims. We accordingly affirm the District Court’s dismissal of K&J’s petition and 

complaint pursuant to Montana Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). 

/S/ BETH BAKER
14

We Concur: 

/S/ MIKE McGRATH

/S/ LAURIE McKINNON

/S/ DIRK M. SANDEFUR

/S/ INGRID GUSTAFSON