No. 60790 

FILE 

JUL 0 rd 2013 

129 Nev., Advance Opinion 1-114 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

COUNTY OF CLARK, NEVADA; AND 

MICHELE SHAFE, IN HER OFFICIAL 

CAPACITY AS CLARK COUNTY 

ASSESSOR, 

Appellants, 

vs. 

HOWARD HUGHES COMPANY, LLC, A 

FOREIGN LIMITED LIABILITY 

COMPANY AUTHORIZED TO DO 

BUSINESS IN NEVADA, 

Respondent. 

Appeal from a district court order denying a motion for change 

of venue. First Judicial District Court, Carson City; James Todd Russell, 

Judge. 

Affirmed. 

Steven B. Wolfson, District Attorney, and Paul D. Johnson, Deputy 

District Attorney, Clark County, 

for Appellants. 

Lionel Sawyer & Collins and Max Couvillier, William J. McKean, and Paul 

D. Bancroft, Reno, 

for Respondent. 

BEFORE HARDESTY, PARRAGUIRRE and CHERRY, JJ. 

OPINION 

By the Court, CHERRY, J.: 

In this appeal, we consider whether a property owner whose 

property is located outside of Carson City may file a petition for judicial 
review from a State Board of Equalization property tax valuation in the 

First Judicial District Court in Carson City. We conclude that the First 

Judicial District Court is an appropriate venue for filing a property tax 

valuation challenge, irrespective of the physical location of the property, 

because it is a "court of competent jurisdiction in the State of Nevada" as 

required by NRS 361.420(2). We further conclude that the statutory 

language provides that a property owner with property located in any 

Nevada county may file a property tax valuation action in any district 

court in the state. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

Respondent Howard Hughes Company, LLC, owns four 

parcels of real property known as Summerlin West located in Clark 

County, Nevada. Dissatisfied with the appraisal performed by appellant 

Michele Shafe, the Clark County Assessor, for the tax year 2011-2012, 

Howard Hughes Company challenged its assessment before the Clark 

County Board of Equalization, which lowered the valuation. 

Subsequently, appellant Clark County appealed the revised assessment to 

the State Board of Equalization, which increased the valuation. 

Ultimately, Howard Hughes Company petitioned the First Judicial 

District Court in Carson City for judicial review pursuant to NRS 361.420 

and NRS 233B.130. 1 

Clark County and the Assessor filed a motion for change of 

venue, arguing that that the action should be maintained in the Eighth 

'The petition was timely filed under NRS 361.420(3). 

2 
Judicial District Court in Clark County. They claimed that actions 

against counties are to take place in the district court that embraces that 

named county under NRS 13.030(1). The district court denied the motion, 

holding that the petition was properly filed in the First Judicial District 

Court in Carson City in accordance with NRS 361.420(2). This appeal 

followed. 

DISCUSSION 

Protesting property owners from counties throughout the 

State of Nevada have challenged their property tax assessment in the 

First Judicial District Court in Carson City. See Washoe Cnty. v. Otto, 128 

Nev. , 282 P.3d 719 (2012) (action initiated in Carson City where the 

property was located in Washoe County); State ex rel. Bd. of Equalization 

v. Barta, 124 Nev. 612, 188 F'.3d 1092 (2008) (same); State ex rel. Bd. of 

Equalization v. Bakst, 122 Nev. 1403, 148 P.3d 717 (2006) (same); Mineral 

Cnty. v. State, Bd. of Equalization, 121 Nev. 533, 119 P.3d 706 (2005) 

(action commenced in Carson City where the property was located in 

Mineral County). We take this opportunity to clarify that property owners 

whose property is located outside of Carson City may, in fact, file a 

petition for judicial review from a State Board of Equalization property tax 

valuation in the First Judicial District Court. Applying de novo review, 

we interpret the applicable venue statutes to determine whether the 

district court properly denied the motion for change of venue. See Otto, 

128 Nev. at , 282 P.3d at 724. 

It is a long-standing rule of statutory construction that where 

a specific and general statute conflict, "the specific statute will take 

precedence." Anderson Family Assocs. v. State Eng'r, 124 Nev. 182, 187, 

179 P.3d 1201, 1204 (2008). NRS 361.420(2) provides that a protesting 

3 
property owner "may commence a suit in any court of competent 

jurisdiction in the State of Nevada against the State and county in which 

the taxes were paid." See Marvin v. Fitch, 126 Nev. „ 232 P.3d 425, 

431 (2010) ("Recognizing that the State Board's equalization process is 

adversarial, the Legislature provided that a taxpayer may seek judicial 

review of a State Board's determination or bring a lawsuit 'in any court of 

competent jurisdiction in the State." (quoting NRS 361.420(2))). By 

contrast, NRS 13.030(1) states that "[a]ctions against a county may be 

commenced in the district court of the judicial district embracing the 

[defendant] county." 

Here, NRS 361.420(2) answers the question of where venue 

may be taken in a property tax valuation action. See State Indus. Ins. Sys. 

v. Surman, 103 Nev. 366, 368, 741 P.2d 1357, 1358-59 (1987) (determining 

that a statue that specifically addresses a question is specific). NRS 

13.030 does not specifically address venue as it relates to property tax 

valuation actions and is therefore general. See In re State Eng'r Ruling 

No. 5823, 128 Nev. , 277 P.3d 449, 457 (2012) (including NRS 

13.030 in a discussion of general venue statutes). Because NRS 361.420(2) 

is specific and NRS 13.030 is general, NRS 361.420(2) is controlling and, 

thus, venue in a tax valuation challenge may be taken in any court of 

competent jurisdiction in this state. 

The Nevada Legislature has unmistakably declared in NRS 

361.420(2) where protesting property owners may file their actions for 

recovery of taxes—in any court of competent jurisdiction in Nevada. The 

First Judicial District Court in Carson City is an appropriate venue 

because Howard Hughes Company's petition for judicial review from the 

4 
State Board of Equalization's property tax valuation may be filed in the 

district court of any Nevada county. 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order denying the 

motion for change of venue. 

We concur: 

J. 

Hardesty 

Parraguirre 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

5