Opinion ID: 1827176
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Should the appellees who properly applied for current use treatment have been required to exhaust their administrative remedies?

Text: The appellants argue that the trial court had no jurisdiction to hear this cause because the plaintiffs failed to pursue the statutorily-provided remedies for challenging tax assessments prior to instituting this action. Section 5(d) of Act 135 provides: Any person aggreived by the denial of any application for the qualification of eligible taxable property for assessment based on its current use value shall have the same rights and remedies for appeal and relief as are provided by law for taxpayers claiming to be aggrieved by the actions of tax assessors or boards of equalization. Code 1975, § 40-3-19, grants property owners a hearing before the county board of equalization to present objections to assessments or valuations of property. Sections 40-3-24 and -25 grant the right of, and the procedure for, appeal from the board of equalization's order to the circuit court. Sections 40-7-45 through -48 grant a more general right of appeal from any final assessment or valuation of property for taxation made by any officer, board, or commission.... Appellants cite such cases as City of Gadsden v. Entrekin, 387 So.2d 829 (Ala. 1980), and Ex parte Board of Educ. of Blount Co., 264 Ala. 34, 84 So.2d 653 (1955), for the proposition that failure to exhaust administrative remedies bars the appellees from bringing this suit. Appellees contend the doctrine of exhaustion of remedies does not apply in this case because they are challenging the assessment procedure employed by appellants as void and illegal. We agree that the method used in Montgomery County was illegal on its face, and thus the appellees were entitled to challenge the appellants' actions without exhausting their administrative remedies. In Graves v. McDonough, 264 Ala. 407, 88 So.2d 371 (1956), the taxpayer sought a declaratory judgment that the comptroller should refund taxes paid on an erroneous assessment of property which the assessor deemed to have escaped assessment in previous years. This Court affirmed the judgment for the plaintiff: First, we inquire whether there is any administrative method provided by law which appellee must have pursued to obtain a refund. Section 53, Title 51 [Code 1940], provides that the tax assessor shall give notice of the escape assessment, and that such person may appear within twenty days and make objection to the assessment, and appeal to the circuit court from an adverse ruling. If no objection is made, the tax assessor shall make the assessment final. But we think the taxpayer by failing to object was not cut off from other remedies[ [7] ] which he may have had to contend that the assessment was void for want of legal authority, and to obtain a refund. The assessment is void under the authority of State v. Mortgage-Bond Co. of New York, [224 Ala. 406, 140 So. 365 (1932)]. Being void, the taxpayer was not required to pursue any certain remedy to get it so declared and obtain a refund. `The necessity for pursuing the statutory remedy does not exist where the assessment complained of is void and illegal.' 84 C.J.S. Taxation, § 513, Note 90. `It is the general rule that a taxpayer seeking judicial relief from an erroneous assessment must have exhausted his remedies before the administrative body empowered initially to correct the error.... An exception is made when the attempted assessment is a nullity because the property is either tax exempt or outside the jurisdiction.' Security-First Nat. Bank v. Los Angeles County, 35 Cal.2d 319, 217 P.2d 946, 947; Bank of America Nat. Trust & Savings Ass'n v. Mundo, 37 Cal.2d 1, 229 P.2d 345. True, the Mortgage-Bond case, supra, merely affirmed on appeal the judgment of the circuit court without considering the necessity to appeal to the circuit court from such an assessment. We do not think that appellee was required to make objection to the tax assessor and appeal from the assessment as a condition to a contention that the escape assessment was illegal and without authority of law. 84 C.J.S. Taxation, § 513. Id., 264 Ala. at 409, 88 So.2d 371. This Court followed the above reasoning and reached the same result in Thorn v. Jefferson County, 375 So.2d 780, at 788 (Ala.1979). Compare City of Gadsden v. Entrekin, 387 So.2d 829 (Ala.1980), where it is observed that exceptions to the doctrine of exhaustion of remedies in zoning matters generally arise where (1) the question raised is one of interpretation of the statute or (2) the action raises questions of law only and not matters requiring administrative findings of fact or an exercise of administrative discretion. In addition, administrative remedies need not be exhausted where doing so would be futile or where the remedies provided are inadequate. Likewise, one need not pursue administrative remedies when irreparable injury is threatened. Id., at 833, citing 101A C.J.S. Zoning and Land Planning § 281 (1979). The appellees herein challenged the Montgomery County current use schedules as illegal applications of the current use law. The trial court held as follows: ... It is clear to this court that the defendants failed to follow the plain meaning of Act No. 135. The adoption of CLT's appraisal for current use under Act No. 135 contravenes the intent of the Legislative enactment and is clearly without statutory authority. Where, as here, the assessment complained of is void and illegal, the necessity for pursuing statutory administrative remedies is obviated. Thorn v. Jefferson County, [supra]; Graves v. McDonough, [supra]; 84 C.J.S. Taxation 513. We agree with appellees and with the trial court that this case fits within the exceptions to the exhaustion of administrative remedies doctrine. Questions of law and of statutory construction preponderate over those of fact. The appellees challenged the county's application of the current use law in its entirety, not as it applies to particular pieces of property. Thus, the rationales for the exhaustion doctrineprotection of the courts from a multiplicity of suits, fact-finding and record-building by administrative bodies, etc.do not apply to this action. As explained under Issue I above, the Montgomery County current use schedules were indeed contrary to the legislative intent expressed in Act 135. Under the exceptions set out in the authorities cited above, the appellees need not have exhausted their administrative remedies instead of bringing this action.