Opinion ID: 1827176
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Was class action an appropriate mode of relief for the appellees?

Text: Appellants contend that the trial court erred in certifying this action as a class action because questions of law or fact common to the members of the class do not predominate over questions affecting only individuals. Rule 23(b)(3), A.R.Civ.P. We hold that the trial court correctly determined that a class action was superior to other available methods of adjudication and that the common burden of proving illegal the ad valorem tax assessment schedule predominated over any questions affecting only the individual appellees. The appellees challenged the tax as it applied to all of Montgomery County, not as it applied to them individually. Reassessments of property belonging to class members would be merely administrative calculations, however, once the court decided the controlling common question of whether appellees properly applied Act 135. As the trial court observed, Once the defendants adopt a current use land pricing schedule ..., it will be a relatively simple matter to determine the current use valuation of any given piece of agricultural or forest land. The defendants have already created property cards on each rural land owner specifying the number of acres in each of the nine land type categories plus swampland. See Plaintiffs' Exhibit 7A. The defendants merely have to multiply the appropriate current use valuation from the new Current Use Land Pricing Schedule by the number of acres in the designated land type category. This can be done quickly in the office without any field work. For this reason, a class action was proper, despite the fact that all the appellees were not identically situated. See, Thorn v. Jefferson County , surpa, in which this Court held that a class action was a permissible vehicle to restrain the enforcement of an invalid tax and to recover any taxes illegally paid. We do note, however, that membership in the class should have been limited to those landowners who had filed for current use treatment. See discussion of Issue II above.