Opinion ID: 2343052
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Denial of Permission to File Illegal-Exaction Complaint

Text: For her first point on appeal, Jones argues that the trial court erred in refusing to require Appellees to repay or cause the repayment of all amounts derived from the sale of her property, less the legal taxes and other lawful charges against the land, as a condition precedent to the transfer of possession of the property. In support of this point, Jones argues the merits and substance of her illegal-exaction claim. A review of the record, however, demonstrates that the trial court did not rule on this point. Rather, as set out below, the trial court's ruling was merely a denial of Jones's motion for permission to file an illegal-exaction complaint at that late stage of the proceedings: BY THE COURT: I'm denying your motion. I think that was addressed in the Supreme Court's opinion and in the Court's original opinion entered April 12. MR. STILLEY: Okay, so that would stand true then also for the illegal exaction portion? BY THE COURT: I'm not ruling, I'm just denying your motion. You had filed a motion to be permitted to file that cause of action in this pending case, and what I'm doing is denying that motion. I'm not saying you can't file an independent case. MR. STILLEY: Okay. BY THE COURT: I'm just saying that, you know, as far as this pending matter in this case that I'm denying that motion. MR. STILLEY: Okay, and is the basis of the Court's ruling then res judicata? BY THE COURT: I'm ruling based on the Supreme Court Mandate. Thus, because the trial court did not rule on the merits of the proposed complaint, we will not entertain Jones's argument on this point, except to the extent that it challenges the trial court's denial of permission to file the illegal-exaction claim. See State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Ledbetter, 355 Ark. 28, 129 S.W.3d 815 (2003); Bell v. Bershears, 351 Ark. 260, 92 S.W.3d 32 (2002); Doe v. Baum, 348 Ark. 259, 72 S.W.3d 476 (2002) (collectively holding that the failure to obtain a ruling is a procedural bar to this court's consideration of an issue on appeal). Double D argues that the trial court was correct in denying the motion on the ground that the issue had already been raised by Buck Jones and had already been rejected as untimely. Double D thus contends that the issue that Jones was attempting to raise in her proposed complaint was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. The Commissioner, on the other hand, contends that the trial court's ruling should be upheld based on the doctrine of law of the case. Specifically, the Commissioner contends that because the trial court already rejected the same claim raised by Buck and this court has affirmed that ruling, both Buck and Robbie were precluded from attempting to raise the issue once again. We agree with the Commissioner that the trial court's ruling was correct because the issue had already been decided in the first appeal and was, therefore, the law of the case. The doctrine of law of the case prohibits a court from reconsidering issues of law and fact that have already been decided on appeal. Cadillac Cowboy, Inc. v. Jackson, 347 Ark. 963, 69 S.W.3d 383 (2002). The doctrine provides that a decision of an appellate court establishes the law of the case for the trial upon remand and for the appellate court itself upon subsequent review. Id.; Clemmons v. Office of Child Support Enfcm't, 345 Ark. 330, 47 S.W.3d 227 (2001). The doctrine serves to effectuate efficiency and finality in the judicial process and its purpose is to maintain consistency and avoid reconsideration of matters once decided during the course of a single, continuing lawsuit. Cadillac Cowboy, 347 Ark. 963, 69 S.W.3d 383; Cloird v. State, 352 Ark. 190, 99 S.W.3d 419 (2003). In the present case, the illegal-exaction claim asserted by Appellant Robbie Jones is the same claim previously raised by her husband, Buck Jones. Both claims alleged that the taxes assessed on the Joneses' property were the result of an illegal reappraisal, and that their collection and levy constituted an illegal exaction, in violation of Amendment 59. Both claims also alleged that the amount of taxes actually levied on the Joneses' residence exceeded the product of the legal valuation and the millage rate by approximately $2 per year. Buck's claim was dismissed by the trial court on the ground that it amounted to a compulsory counterclaim that should have been raised at the earliest opportunity. Thus, because Buck did not raise the issue until after the trial court had made its ruling on the merits of the case, his claim was untimely. This court affirmed the trial court's ruling, and that ruling is the law of the case in this matter. Accordingly, the issue is now barred for reconsideration. We are unpersuaded by Jones's attempt to distinguish the current claim from that raised prior to the first appeal on the bases that (1) the relief sought is different, and (2) the standing of the persons bringing the claim is different. On the first basis, she asserts that the previous claim only sought to set aside the deed or have it declared void, whereas the current claim seeks a refund of all the tax monies illegally assessed, levied, and collected. She claims that she could not have simultaneously sought a refund of the tax monies and ownership of the property itself, because she insists that these are inconsistent positions. However, she offers no convincing argument or authority as to why she could not have pursued such alternative theories of relief, and we are not aware of any. To the contrary, it is common practice to plead alternative theories and seek alternative remedies in the same lawsuit. Regarding the issue of standing, Jones asserts that a prior claim brought by a person who was not the property owner should not stand as a bar to the fee holder. This assertion fails to recognize the import of our ruling that the illegal-exaction claim, regardless of who asserted it, was raised untimely. That was the gist of the trial court's ruling and this court's ruling in the first appeal. The bottom line is that both Buck and Robbie Jones waited until after the case had been determined on its merits before they raised the specter of an illegal exaction. We thus reject this argument. We also reject Jones's argument that her claim is not barred by law of the case because the previous illegal-exaction claim was not considered on the merits. She relies on Colbert v. State, 346 Ark. 144, 55 S.W.3d 268 (2001), wherein this court stated: The State asserts in its brief that the law-of-the-case doctrine should govern this appeal. We disagree. The doctrine precludes the trial court on remand from considering and deciding questions that were explicitly or implicitly determined on appeal. As previously mentioned, Mr. Colbert was procedurally barred in his first appeal from challenging the admission of evidence that supported his simultaneous-possession conviction. Thus, because that issue was not before this court in the first appeal, it was not expressly or implicitly determined in Colbert I. Id. at 147, 55 S.W.3d at 271 n. 1 (citations omitted). Jones's reliance on this holding is misplaced, because there was no procedural bar of our consideration of the trial court's ruling in the first appeal. As stated previously, the trial court dismissed the illegal-exaction claim on the ground that it was raised untimely, and this court affirmed that ruling. The fact that a claim is dismissed as untimely is not the same as saying that it is procedurally barred from appellate review. To the contrary, our previous decision demonstrates that the issue was before this court in the first appeal and was decided. In sum, the illegal-exaction claim now raised by Appellant Robbie Jones is the same claim that her husband, Buck Jones, attempted to raise prior to the first appeal of this matter. The trial court ruled that Buck's illegal-exaction claim was a compulsory counterclaim that should have been raised at the first opportunity, once he was joined as a party to the suit. Because he did not raise it until after the trial had been held and after the trial court had issued its ruling, the trial court dismissed his claim as untimely. We affirmed the trial court's ruling, and our ruling became the law of this case. Thus, when Robbie attempted to raise the same illegal-exaction claim following our mandate, the trial court was correct to deny her permission to pursue such claim based on our mandate.