### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs A ugus t 22 , 200 5
STA TE EX REL 

### . WA LTERJ. D AV IS v. A BC BRE NTWO OD LOC KSM ITH SERVI CE, ET AL 

### . Appeal f romthe Chancer y Court for Williamson County No. 28643 R.E.Lee Davie s, Chancellor

No. M2004- 00638-COA-R 3-CV- F iled October 20, 2005

Appellant is a de fenda nt in a delinquent tax sui t by Wil liamson Count y fo r b usiness persona l pr op e rt y ta xes f or the y e ar 20 00

. Th e tr ia l c ou rt g rante d su mma ry jud g me nt t o th e plaint if f b e c aus e th e d e f e n d a n t h a d n o t u ti li ze d h is a v a il ab le a d mi n is tr a ti v e r e me d ie s , a n d D e f e n d a n t ap p e a le d

. We
a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f the tr ia l c ou rt

. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Chancer y Court Affi rm ed

W I L L I AM B. C A IN , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which P ATR I C I A J. C O T T RE LL and F R ANK G. C L EME NT , J R ., J J ., joined. Trippe S. Fr eid, Nashville, Te nnessee , pro se.
William J

. Yos t, F rank lin , T e nn e sse e , f or the app e lle e s, Sta te of

Te nn e sse e a ndWal te r J. D a vis , Wil liamson CountyTrustee

.

OP IN ION

Th e fa c ts o f this c a se are no t in dis pu te

. Ap pe lla nt is a pr a c tic ing a tto rn e y wh o mov e d h is office s from Franklin, Will iamson County , Tenne ssee, to Na shville, Davidson County , Tenne ssee, in October

of 1999 with offic es thereaf t er remaining in Davidson County and no off

ices be ing maintained in Will iamson County

. Personal property taxes on the business of the a ppellant for the y e ar 2 00 0 w e re a sse sse d b y Willi a mso n Co un ty . T he re ha d b e e n n o p ri or a sse ssm e nt m a de on his b u s i n e s s p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y. W h i l e t h e ap p e l l a n tr e m a i n e d a r e s i d e n to f

W i l l i a m s o n C o u n t y, Tenne ssee, during the y ear 2000, his office was located in Nashville for the entire ty

of t hat y ear
. Ap pe lla nt w a s n ot a sse sse d f or pe rs on a l pr op e rt y

ta xes b y the Me tr op oli t anG o v e rn m e nt o f N a sh vil le for a ny of the y ear s 2000, 2001 and 2002.-2-

This suit bythe Will iams CountyAttorney soug ht t o re cover

delinquent taxes for the y ear 2000 and wa s filed M arc h 28, 2002, in the Chance ry Court for Willi amson County . The suit was broug ht pursuant to the provisi ons of Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tion 67-5-2401 et seq. for the collection of de linquent tax es due to Willi amson County and the c ity

of Franklin along with other taxes and other entities not involved in the issues at bar

. Th e Sta te me nt of Un dis pu te d Ma te ri a l F a c ts f ile d b y the plaint if

f p ur su a nt t o T e nn e sse e Rul e o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e 5 6

. 0 3 i s u n d i s p u t e d b y t h e d e f e n d a n ta n d d i s c l o s e s t h e f o l l o w i n g h i s t o r y.
1. The Assessors Offic e of Williamson C ounty , Tenne ssee in the or dinary course of its bu sin e ss a sse sse d th e bu sin e ss p e rs on a l pr op e rt y of the De fe nd a nt, Tripp e S. Fre id for the y ear

2000. 2. Th e De fe nd a nt w a s se nt n oti c e of the a sse ssm e nt of his bu sin e ss p e rs on a l pr op e rt y in the ordinary

course of business by

the Assessor’ s Offic e. 3. Th e De fe nd a nt d id n ot ap pe a l hi s a sse ssm e nt t o th e B oa rdof As se ssm e nt A pp e a ls or the Boar d of Equaliz ation and has not utiliz ed the a vailable a dminist rative a ppeal proce ss and re medies. 4. Th e ta x a sse sse d to the De fe nd a nt a pp e ars on the ta x rol ls o f Wi lli a mso n Co un ty Tenne ssee maintaine d by the Trustee for 2000. 5. Th e Tr us te e ha s n ot r e c e ive d p a y me nt ac c or din g to the bo ok s a ndre c or ds of his office for the y ear

2000. 6. The unpa id tax es in question wer e tra nsmitt ed b y t h e T rust ee to the Cler k and Master f or collec tion and their collec tion through this Court is the subject matter of this li tigation. 7. The Def

endant has not paid the amounts due and ow ing f or her delinquent taxes to the Cle rk

a ndMa ste r o f the Cou rt

. Another fac t a sserted by

the def endant a nd undisputed by the plaintiff is that the def endant’ s office was located in Nashville for the entire ty

of the c alenda

r y ear 2000.

On F e br ua ry 4, 20 04 , the Cha nc e llo r g rante d su mma ry jud g me nt to the plaint if f bec ause Def endant ha d failed to utiliz e his available administrative remedies and had not paid the a ssessed de lin qu e nt t a xes u nd e r p ro te st. De fe nd a nt Fre id f ile d a tim e ly app e a l.

An a ns we r b y

ta xpa y e r t o c omp la int

fo r the c oll e c tio n of de lin qu e nt ta xes i s n ot an a c c e pta ble method of conte sting the va lidityof the unde rly ing a ssessment. Statutory sy stems for conte sting tax assessments by

both the State of Tenne ssee a nd by counti es an d ci t i es as arms of the State of Tenne ssee a

re of ancie nt orig in both in Tenne ssee and elsewhe re as is discussed at leng th in W ar d v. Alsup , 46 S.W . 573, 576-77 (Te nn.1898).

Under a compa nion statutory

scheme , a Me t ropol itan Nashville taxpay er c halleng ed by ind e pe nd e nt a c tio n in Cha nc e ry Cou rt a ta x ass e ssm e nt b y

Me tr op oli ta n G ov e rn me nt o f N a sh vil le-3-

and Da vidson Countywithout first pay ing the taxes unde r protest. I n reve rsing the trial court, the Supreme Court held:

Sections 67-2303 et seq., T.C.A., pr ovide a f ull, complete, orde rly

and exclusive r emedy for the taxpay er who conce ives himself wrong ed by an improper exercise of

the taxing power . This statutory scheme conte m p l at es payment of disputed tax liabilityas a c onditi o n p re ce d en t to a suit for a r efund. The re is no statutory predic ate f

or a suit for the forg iveness of ta x es, pena lty , or i ntere st, and no
case law in this jurisdiction supports s uch a pr ocedur e. The statutory

scheme provides, in clea r and c og ent lang uag e, t h at where proce eding s are instit u t ed for the c ollection of re venue due the municipality , the taxpay er: (s)ha ll, if he conc eives the same to be unjus t or illeg al, or a g ainst any statute or clause of the Consti tution of the state, pay the same under prote st . (Emphasis supplied) Sec. 67- 2303, T.C.A.

The whole theory of t his exclusive reme dy for contesting tax liabilityis that tax revenues a

re the lifeblood of public cor porate exis tence and p ublic bodies may not be frustrated in the per formanc e of e ssential g overn m en t al functions by p o s tp o n e me n ts o r d e lay s in th e ir c o ll e c ti o n
. B a n k of C ommerc e and Trust Co. v. Senter , 149 Tenn. 569, 260 S.W. 144 (1924)

I n Tidw ell v. Goody ear Tire & Rubber Company , 5 2 0 S

. W.2d 721 (Tenn.1975) , we r ecog nized the traditional p o we r o f courts of equity to relieve
a g a ins t f or fe itu re s and pe na lti e s. I nd e e d this is a br oa d eq uit able po we r, bu t in a c a se su c h a s th is, it m a y

on ly be inv ok e d p ur su a nt t o p a y me nt u nd e r p ro te st.
State v. De linquent Taxpayers as show n o n 1 9 7 2 R eal Property Delinquent Tax records of the Metropolitan Governm ent of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee , 526 S.W .2d 453 , 454 (Tenn.1975) (footnotes omitted).

Mo st c le arl y

c on tr oll ing in the c a se a t ba r i s Fe ntre ss C ty . B an k

v . H olt , 535 S.W .2d 854 (Tenn.1976) wher ein the Supreme Court held:

I n the pre sent case , none of these reme dies or proce dures has bee n utiliz ed. I nstead the ta x pay ers ha ve broug ht a direc t action for declar atory judgme nt in the courts, cha lleng ing the validity of their assessments, without either f irst pay ing the tax or seeking revie w of the a ssessments t h rough the boa rds of e qualization. The questio np r e s e n te d

is w h e ther a n action may

be maintained unde r these c ircumstance s

. . .-4- I t appea rs that there has bee n some ambig uity or unce rtainty in the case law, insofar a s proce dural require ments are conce rned, as to w hen a taxpay er ma y file a direc t action cha lleng ing the leg ality of his a ssessment. We a re of the opinion that it is proper to requir e the taxpay er to pay his county taxes under protest befor e being permitted to file such direct action in the courts to rec over them or to challeng e the le g a lit y of his a sse ssm e nt.
We b el i ev e that the Rosewood decision is a sound one, and that a taxpay er oug ht not to be require d in all case s to go through b oards of equalization or other ad m i n i s tra t i v e p ro ce d u re s i n o rd ert o ra i s e s tri ct l y l ega l i s s u es
. He m aygo t h ro u gh these a g encie s, of cour se, without first pay ing his taxes. He should, h oweve r, be permit ted ac cess to the c ourts to raise pur ely leg al questions, but only afte r he ha s fi rs t paid the ta xes u nd e r p ro te st.
Acc ording ly , any

earlier ca ses in this state, which m ay have pe rmitted direct suits ag ainst county

taxi ng authorities without first requiring payment of the taxes under protest, are now modified. A county taxpay er may follow t h e p ro cedure approve d in Ro se woo d, su pr a , p a y his cou nty

ta xes, a ndfi le su it t o r e c ov e r the m, when he only

seeks to pre sent leg al questions as t o the validi ty of hi s assessment; or he ma y g o th ro ug h th e e qu a lizatio n b oa rd s, c ha lle ng inga ny a sp e c t of his a sse ssm e nt, wi tho ut f ir st p a y ing the dis pu te d ta xes. He may not, however , have acc ess to the courts without f irst pur suing one or the other of

these c ourses of pr ocedur e. Fentress Cty. Bank , 535 S.W .2d at 856-57. Having failed to a vail himself o f administrative re medies or pay his assessed taxes under pr ote st, Pla int if

f m a y no t r e so rt

to c ou rt

. Th e jud g me nt o f the tr ia l c ou rt is i n a ll r e sp e c ts a ff

ir me d w ith c os ts a sse sse d a g a ins t Ap pe lla nt.

___________________________________ WI LL I AM B. CAIN, J UDGE