Opinion ID: 1430104
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the judgment against the counties

Text: In its petition for review of the Commission's amended formulae, Sierra did not name the counties as parties, although Sierra did allege that it was aggrieved by an overpayment of taxes because of the improperly amended formulae. The lower court ordered the State Board of Equalization to direct the tax receivers of the counties to refund the overpaid taxes to Sierra. Because the eleven counties were not before the district court, we have determined that this part of the lower court's judgment does not bind the counties. In ordering the State Board of Equalization to direct the counties to refund the tax monies, the district court judge relied on NRS 361.405. [3] He necessarily determined, without any party raising or litigating the issue, that the changes in valuation had less than a substantial effect on tax revenue, NRS 361.405(3) [4] ; he then ordered the counties to refund the overpaid taxes without allowing them any opportunity to be heard. This was error. Because the counties were not before the district court, the judgment is not legally enforceable against them. Provident Bank v. Patterson, 390 U.S. 102, 88 S.Ct. 733, 19 L.Ed.2d 936 (1968). We therefore reverse that part of the lower court's order requiring the State Board of Equalization to require the counties to refund the overpaid taxes to Sierra. For the above reasons, we affirm that part of the lower court's order finding the Commission's regulations to be invalid on account of its failure to follow the APA notice and hearing requirements; and, reverse that part of the order directing the counties to refund the amount of the overpaid taxes. GUNDERSON, C.J., MANOUKIAN and SPRINGER, JJ., and ZENOFF, [5] Senior Justice, concur.