IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION ONE
LEGACY PARTNERS RIVERPARK APARTMENTS BUILDINGS A/B LLC; and LEGACY PARTNERS RIVERPARK APARTMENTS BUILDING E LLC, Delaware Limited Liability Corporations, Appellants, No. 69073-6-1 o 1-0 CAO
«-" ! S

-o o o -n,

" —id o^ CD -i';'^,

KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, a Municipal Corporation, Respondent. UNPUBLISHED OPINION
FILED: September3, 2013 Verellen, J. —The King County Assessor (Assessor) obtained summary judgment dismissing Legacy Partners' tax refund action. Legacy Partners appeals, challenging the Assessor's authority to correcterroneous property tax assessments in tax years 2010 (the 2009 assessment) and 2011 (the 2010 assessment). The Assessor had authority to correctthe 2009 assessment of Legacy's new construction underthe manifest error provision of RCW 84.48.065(1). The Assessor had authority to correct the 2010 assessment because the May 31, 2010 assessment finalization date provided under RCW 84.40.040 is directory rather than mandatory. We affirm.No. 69073-6-1/2

FACTS Legacy Partners Riverpark Apartments Building A/B LLCand Legacy Partners Riverpark Apartments Building E LLC (collectively Legacy) own two new residential 

### condominium buildings in Redmond, Washington.1 The Assessor was aware ofthe development, and appraisal staffvisited the site in June 2009 to value the 

### improvements on the parcels.2 Before development ofthe parcels, the appraisal records listed a "placeholder" improvement value of $1,000 on each parcel. The placeholder entry signaled that future development would require valuation once construction was complete. Through
a series oferrors with respect to assessment years 2009 and 2010, the Assessor 

### initially listed both parcels at an assessed value of$1,000 instead of at the actual assessed value. The 2009 Assessment (Payable in 2010) InJune 2009, after substantial completion ofthe condominium construction, the Assessor conducted a site inspection. The Assessor generated a new construction 

### production report that recognized the improvement values for assessment year 2009. The appraisal staffdetermined the fair market value ofthe improvements on Building A/B was $16,129,600, and on Building E was $14,135,900. The Assessor entered these assessed values for each parcel into the Assessor's 

### appraisal value tracking system. When the Assessor's appraisal staffinput the 

### 1Building A/B LLC ownsparcel 733805-0010 and Building ELLC owns parcel 733805-0040. 

### 2Thecertificate ofoccupancyfor Building E was issued in August 2009, and the certificate ofoccupancy for BuildingA/B was issued in March 2010.No. 69073-6-1/3 

### improvement values into its computer system, the software program placed an automatic hold on those improvements. The hold is designed to flag possibly erroneous assessed values, and places a hold on any assessed value increase ofover 30 percent (or decreases of over 25 percent) from the previous year's value. A senior appraiser responsible for reviewing the holds failed to release the holds on these two parcels, so the 2009 assessment roll was finalized with the original $1,000 placeholdervalue for each parcel. The Assessor learned of the mistake in late April or early May of 2010, atwhich 

### pointtheAssessor's office had already billed thepropertytaxes.3 OnApril 29, 2010, and May 4, 2010, the Assessor requested corrections to the 2009 roll so the accurate improvement values that had initially failed to post would ultimately be included inthe 2009 roll. The Assessor also sent notices to Legacy as required under RCW 84.48.065, 

### explaining thevalue change was because ofa "failfure] topost."4 TheAssessorissued corrected 2009 tax statements to Legacy on May 5, 2010. The 2010Assessment (Payable in 2011) Because the Assessor did not learn ofthe assessment mistake until May 2010, the Assessor was not able to correct the $1,000 placeholdervalue before the initial 

### 2010 assessments were issued early that year. The Assessortherefore sent initial 

### assessment notices to Legacy that listed the erroneous $1,000 placeholdervalues. The placeholdervalues remained on the 2010 assessment roll until November 3, 2010, when the Assessor posted a correction to the 2010 roll. The Assessor sent updated 

### 3The Assessor learned of the mistake from the owners of an adjacent parcel who received a notice listingthe $1,000 improvementvalue placeholder. 

### 4Clerk's Papers at 255, 257.No. 69073-6-1/4 

### notices ofvaluetoLegacy onNovember 11, 2010.5 The2010 assessment roll was certified shortly thereafter, in December 2010, reflecting the accurate assessments for both parcels. Procedural History Legacy paid the corrected taxes for 2009 and 2010, and then challenged the revised 2009 and 2010 assessments in an appeal to the King County Board of Equalization, as well as inthe instant action requesting a tax refund. In the instant action, the Assessor moved for summaryjudgment, and the court granted the motion. Legacy timely filed its notice of appeal. DISCUSSION Legacy challenges the revised tax assessments for years 2009 and 2010, contending the trial court erred in concluding the Assessor had authority to correctthe 

### placeholdervalues of$1,000 that were erroneously used in both assessment years. 

### Wereview atrial court's summaryjudgmentdecision de novo.6 Weperform the same inquiry as the trial court, viewing all facts and reasonable inferences inthe light most 

### favorable to thenonmoving party.7 Our objective in analyzing a statute is to ascertain and carry out the legislature's 

### intent.8 Wederive the plain meaning ofa statutefrom theordinary meaning ofthe language at issue, inthe context ofthe statute in which that provision is found, as well 

### 5The2010improvementvalues shifted slightlyfrom the 2009 values,with BuildingA/B valued at $14,997,400 and Building E valued at $15,433,300. 

### 6Lvbbertv. GrantCounty, 141 Wn.2d 29, 34, 1 P.3d 1124 (2000). 

### 7Id,; CR56(c). 8Dep't of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn LLC. 146 Wn.2d 1, 9-10, 43 P.3d 4 (2002).No. 69073-6-1/5



### as taking into consideration thestatutory scheme as awhole.9 Ifthemeaning ofa statute is plain on its face, then the court must give effectto that plain meaning as the 

### expression oflegislative intent.10 It iswell established that an unambiguous statute is notsubjectto therules ofstatutory construction.11 Manifest Error—The 2009 Assessment Legacy argues the Assessor lacked the authority under RCW 84.48.065(1) to correct the erroneous listing at the placeholder value of $1,000 for the 2009 assessment. RCW 84.48.065(1) provides the Assessor authority to correct erroneous assessments due to "manifest errors," provided the correction will not involve a revaluation ofthe property. The statute provides in pertinent part: The county assessor or treasurer may cancel or correct assessments on the assessment or tax rolls which are erroneous due to manifest errors in description, double assessments, clerical errors in extending the rolls, and such manifest errors in the listing ofthe property which do notinvolve a revaluation ofproperty.... When the county assessor cancels or corrects an assessment, the assessor shall send a notice to the taxpayer in accordance with RCW 84.40.045, advising the taxpayer that the action has been taken and notifying the taxpayer ofthe right to appeal the cancellation or correction to the county board ofequalization, in accordance with RCW 84.40.038.
... No manifest error cancellation or correction
.. . shall be made for any period more than three years 

### preceding the yearin which theerrorisdiscovered.1121 Legacy argues thatthe Assessor ran afoul of RCW 84.48.065 when, in May 

### 2010, itrequested roll corrections to reflect the accurate improvement values for
9Lake v. Woodcreek Homeowners Ass'n, 169 Wn.2d 516, 526, 243 P.3d 1283 (2010).10 Campbell &Gwinn, 146 Wn.2d at 9-10. 

### 11 Dep't. ofTransp. v. James River Ins. Co.. 176 Wn.2d 390, 396, 292 P.3d 118 (2013).

### 12 RCW 84.48.065(1) (emphasis added).No. 69073-6-1/6


### assessment year 2009, and that the roll correction constituted a prohibited revaluation 

### oftheimprovements.13 The Assessor relies on the plain language ofthe statute, arguing the manifest
error "catch-all" inthe statute, "errors inthe listing ofthe property which do not involve a 

### revaluation ofproperty," includes this exact error. "Revaluation" is defined as "a revised 

### or newvaluation orestimate."14,15 The Assessor valued the properties once, in June 2009. The Assessor's correction ofthe error involved removal ofthe automatic hold the 

### appraisal program had placed on the updated improvement values the appraisal staff had entered in June 2009. Correction of the error did not require the Assessorto 

### revalue the property, as staffhad already entered the accurate June 2009 improvement values.16


### 13 Legacy does notargue the Assessorfailed toprovide notice underthestatute. 14Webster'sThird NewInternational Dictionary 1942 (3d ed. 2002). The dictionary definition is consistentwith the Department ofRevenue's definition. See WAC 458-14-005(20) (defining "revaluation" as "a change in value ofproperty based upon an exercise ofappraisaljudgment"). 

### 15 The Assessor also relies onWAC 458-14-005(14), which defines "manifest error." The Department ofRevenue has defined "manifest error" to mean "an error in 

### listing or assessment, whichdoes not involve a revaluation of property, including the following: . . . (b) A clerical or posting error; or... (j) Any other errorwhich can be 

### corrected by reference to the records and valuation methods applied to similarly situated properties, withoutexercising appraisaljudgment." WAC458-14-005(14). We find itunnecessary to rely on this section ofthe WAC because the plain language of the manifest error statute contemplates the type ofmistake at issue inthe case. 

### 16 Legacy also argues that the Assessor's correction ofthe assessments is inconsistent with the omit statute, RCW 84.40.080. The omit statute permits the Assessor to make a correction when improvements are omitted entirely from an 

### assessment. RCW 84.40.080 ("Where improvements have not been valued and 

### assessed as a part of the real estate upon which the same may be located, as evidenced bythe assessment rolls, they may be separately valued and assessed as omitted property underthis section."). The Assessor does not rely on RCW84.40.080 

### to support its revised 2009 or2010 assessments. RCW84.40.080 applies only whereNo. 69073-6-1/7
We affirm the trial court's determination that the Assessor had the authority to correct the erroneous 2009 assessment under RCW 84.48.065(1). The Assessor's actions fall squarely within the plain language ofthe statute. Further, the statute contemplates that correction of such errors may involve material changes to both the 

### assessed value and the taxrolls.17 As the Assessorhighlights, ifmanifesterrorssuch

as this one were not correctable under RCW 84.48.065 (provided such correction took place within the three-year limitation provided in the statute), the statute would create a huge windfall to taxpayers whose property was mistakenly listed below the appraised value and would create a tax burden to taxpayers whose property was mistakenly listed above the appraised value. Timeliness Requirements for Listing New Construction—RCW36.21.080 Legacy argues the Assessor did not have authority to list Legacy's new construction on the assessment rolls afterAugust 31 ofeitherthe 2009 or 2010 assessment years, relying upon RCW 36.21.080. RCW 36.21.080 provides authority to
assessors to place new construction or significant renovation on the assessment roll up 

### through August 31 ofthe assessmentyear. The statute provides:

no value at all was placed on the improvements. Here, the Assessor did value the 

### improvements (although the correct values were not initially accurate), and the placeholdervalues signified thatfuture development would require valuation once construction was complete. The omit statute does not apply to these facts. 

### 17 See RCW 84.48.065(1) ("The countyassessoror treasurer may cancel or correct assessments on the assessment or tax rolls."). We decline to examine the 

### legislative history of RCW 84.48.065, which Legacy urges us to consider. Legacy has not demonstrated thatthe plain language ofthe statute is ambiguous. Examination of 

### legislative history is only appropriate where the plain language does not dictate the outcome. Campbell & Gwinn, 146 Wn.2d at 12.No. 69073-6-1/8
The county assessor is authorized to place any property that is increased in value due to construction or alteration for which a building permit was issued
... on the assessment rolls for the purposes oftax levy up to August 31st ofeach year. The assessed valuation ofthe property shall be 

### considered as ofJuly 31st ofthatyear.1181 In contrast to the July 31 valuation date for new construction in RCW 36.21.080, all other real property is assessed according to its value "on the first day ofJanuary ofthe 

### yearin which it isassessed."19 Legacy contends that because the Assessor did not enterthe accurate assessed value of its improvements (i.e., the new construction) until afterAugust 31, 2009 for the 2009 assessment and until afterAugust 31, 2010 for the 2010 assessment, the July 31 

### valuation date ofRCW 36.21.080 doesnot applytoeitherassessmentyear.20 Accordingly, Legacy argues that its tax liability stems from the assessed value of its 

### parcels on January 1, 2009 ($1,000) and January 1, 2010 ($1,000). As to the 2010 assessment, the Assessor correctly observes that 

### RCW 84.40.040 rather than RCW 36.21.080 applies.21 RCW 84.40.040 provides that
assessors shall complete the listing and valuation of existing properties (i.e., not new 

### construction) by May 31 ofeach year: "The assessor shall also complete the duties of 18 RCW 36.21.080. 19 RCW 84.40.020. 

### 20 Forassessmentyear2009, the parcelswereplaced into the systemin June 2009, but due to the automatic hold, were not listed with the accurate improvement 

### values until the May2010 correction, after the August 31, 2009 deadline forlisting new construction. For assessment year 2010, the parcels were listed on the assessment roll 

### withthe accurate improvementvalues by November 2010, afterthe May 31, 2010 deadline for listing existing construction. 

### 21 TheAssessorhad already placed Legacy's parcels on the 2009rolls as new construction by May2010. It is nonsensical to apply RCW 36.21.080 to a 2010 assessment ofparcels that were no longer "new" and had already been placed "on the assessment rolls for the purposes of tax levy" in2009 (albeit late). RCW 36.21.080.

8No. 69073-6-1/9 

### listing and placing valuations onall property byMay 31st of each year, except that the listing and valuation of construction and mobile homes under RCW 36.21.080 and 36.21.090 shall be completed byAugust 31st ofeach year." 

### As our Supreme Court held inNiichel v. Lancaster, the May 31 timeline setforth 

### in RCW 84.40.040 is directory ratherthan mandatory.22 The courtreasoned: The statutes under consideration serve the purpose of prescribing the 

### procedure to be followed in making assessments. They do not purport to limitthe taxing power. The words are affirmative and relate to the manner in which the assessment power is to be exercised. The specified times for 

### performance are not essential to the purpose of the statute. As long as the assessments are made inthe year before the taxes are to be levied, 

### including an allowance for time in which to appeal, the essential purpose ofthe statute is satisfied.[23] Niichel is satisfied because the Assessor corrected the 2010 assessments before 

### the 2010 tax roll closed, and in the year before the taxes were levied (2011). Further, 

### Legacy had the time and ability to appeal the corrected 2010 assessment 

### administratively. Legacy provides no authoritythat there must be time tofully complete the appeal process in the year before the tax is levied. Accordingly, the Assessor's November 3, 2010 revision to the parcels' value forthe 2010 assessment year, although 

### after the May 31 deadline, does not provide a basis for a refund.



### 22 97 Wn.2d 620, 626-27, 647 P.2d 1021 (1982) (concluding that to read "shall 

### also complete" in RCW 84.40.040 as mandatory would "gravely disserve the interests of this State and its people and would protect no right of any individual. The purpose of 

### thetaxing statutewould beeffectivelythwarted."). In Niichel. the taxpayerchallenged the assessor's authorityto raise the assessed value on the subject propertiesbecause the steps in the assessment process were delayed, jd. at 622. 23 Id. at 624.No. 69073-6-1/10
We need not consider the applicability of RCW 36.21.080 to the 2009 assessment because the manifest error statute permitted the Assessor to correct the 2009 assessment.24



### 24 To the extentLegacy argues themanifesterrorstatutewould neverextend to a late listing of new construction, itprovides no authority for that proposition. Further, even ifwe applied RCW 36.21.080 to the 2009 assessment as Legacy urges us to do, we would reach the conclusion that the August 31 deadline is directory rather than mandatory. Niichel's rationale that the May 31 deadline in RCW 84.40.040 is directory ratherthan mandatory applies with equal force to RCW 36.21.080. As the Niichel court explained, "[T]he courts charge every ownerwith knowledge that his property is taxable every year.... Applying these principles to the question before us, we cannot conceive that the [legislature intended, in specifying the times atwhich assessment actions should be taken, to make the validity ofthe assessment depend upon strict compliance with those provisions." Niichel. 97 Wn.2d at 626. The Niichel court further reasoned that RCW 84.40.040 was a statute "'specifying a time within which a public officer is to perform an official act regarding the rights and duties ofothers'" rather than a statute limitingthe power ofthe officer, jd at 623 (quoting State v. Miller. 32 Wn.2d 149,155, 201 P.2d 136 (1948)). Similarto RCW 84.40.040, RCW 36.21.080 specifies a time within which the Assessor must value new construction and place iton the assessment rolls. RCW 36.21.080 simply provides the Assessor more time to list and value new construction than itprovides to value existing property, and provisions in regard to time 

### or method are generally interpreted as directory only. id. at 624. Both RCW 84.40.040 and RCW 36.21.080 prescribe the procedure for making assessments and do not limit the county's taxing authority, jd. 

### Legacy also contends the August 31 deadline of RCW 36.21.080 must be mandatory because the deadline "reflects a reasonable legislativejudgment as to when new construction listing must be completed in orderto permit property taxes to be calculated and imposed in the manner contemplated by law." Appellant's. Br. at 14. 

### Legacy explains that because new construction increases the aggregate amount of tax that a district may levy, new construction listings must be timely completed to allow taxing districts to include that value in determining tax levies. Appellant's Br. at 14-16 

### (citing RCW 84.55.010). While Legacy's argument is technically correct, itcannotbe reconciled with the manifest error statute, RCW 84.48.065(1), which specifically 

### contemplates a retroactive adjustmentto both assessments and to the tax rolls includingerrors over the pastthree years. The Niichel court did not considerthe relationship between RCW 84.04.080 and the manifest error statute. For this reason, we are not concerned with the Niichel court's statement that assessments be completed 

### in the year before the taxes are actually levied. Niichel, 97 Wn.2d at 624.

10No. 69073-6-1/11

CONCLUSION The Assessor's correction ofthe automatic hold on the 2009 valuation ofthe improvements did not involve any "revaluation," and RCW 84.48.065 applies to this manifest error in the 2009 assessment. The correction ofthe 2010 assessment after the May 31 deadline ofRCW 84.40.040 was permissible because, under established
case law, the deadline is directory and not mandatory. Legacy does not establish it is entitled to a refund. Affirmed.

WE CONCUR:

11