Opinion ID: 2514281
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the district court was the proper forum in which to bring an action challenging the jurisdiction of the board of equalization to assess eogrm for ad valorem taxes.

Text: ¶ 13 Summary judgment is properly granted when there are no disputed questions of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. [20] When summary judgment involves only legal questions, the standard of review of a trial court's grant of summary judgment is de novo. [21] The burden is on EOGRM, as the moving party in this cause, to show beyond a reasonable doubt that 68 O.S. Supp.2002 § 2851.3 is unconstitutional. [22] A legislative act is presumed to be constitutional and will be upheld unless it is clearly, palpably and plainly inconsistent with the Constitution. [23] ¶ 14 Before addressing EOGRM's arguments on the constitutionality of § 2851.3, the Board of Equalization first argues that under 68 O.S.2001 § 2885(A), [24] EOGRM may not seek equitable remedies in district court because jurisdiction over its claim rests with the Court of Tax Review. EOGRM argues that because it is challenging the jurisdiction of the Board of Equalization to assess ad valorem taxes against it, the district court is the proper forum for the action under 68 O.S.2001 § 2886. [25] ¶ 15 This question was raised in United Airlines, Inc. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 1990 OK 29, 789 P.2d 1305. There, United Airlines brought an action in district court seeking a declaratory judgment that it was not a public service corporation for the purposes of ad valorem taxation, and the Board of Equalization argued that the district court was without subject matter jurisdiction to hear the cause. We determined that the kinds of actions contemplated by § 2885(A) were those in which a taxpayer brings a complaint requesting a correction of equalizations or assessments made in error or requesting an abatement of taxes, and appeals from such proceedings. [26] We found that it was more appropriate for a district court to determine whether the Board of Equalization has jurisdiction to assess a particular taxpayer, and that § 2886 was applicable to such actions. [27] Here, EOGRM is making the same challenge to the jurisdiction of the Board of Equalization. United Airlines v. State Bd. of Equalization is dispositive of the issue and the district court was the proper forum for this cause.