Opinion ID: 4658989
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: District Court Controversy

Text: ¶2 Property owners (taxpayers) appealed ad valorem tax assessments made during 2012-2015 to the Tulsa County District Court after their appeals to the Tulsa County Board of Equalization were denied. Taxpayers were successful in the District Court appeal by showing one parcel of property was exempt and a second parcel partially exempt from ad valorem taxation. The District Court determined the amounts of the tax refund and stated the Tulsa County Treasurer pay the Petitioners interest on such amounts as allowed by law. 1 ¶3 The Tulsa County Assessor appealed and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the District Court's judgment. In the Matter of Assessment for Tax Year 2012, etc. v. Yazel , 2019 OK CIV APP 2, 432 P.3d 1071. Mandate issued January 16, 2019, and on May 8, 2019, taxpayers filed a motion in the District Court for postjudgment interest. The motion relied on a statute and an opinion from this Court, 12 O.S. § 727.1 and State ex rel. Oklahoma Employment Security Commission v. Sanders , 1956 OK 262, 304 P.2d 287. 2 ¶4 The Tulsa County Assessor responded to the motion for postjudgment interest and stated taxpayers had received claim forms prepared and mailed to you on February 22, 2019 refunding taxes paid under protest, along with accrued interest. 3 The county assessor's response included correspondence from counsel for taxpayers stating the taxpayers objected to the assessor calculating interest based upon the Treasurer's investments of such funds as provided under 68 O.S. § 2884, rather than the postjudgment rate of interest as allowed by 12 O.S. § 727.1. 4 The county assessor relied on a statute and an opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals, 68 O.S. § 2884, and Bd. of Educ., Woodward Pub. Schools v. Hensley , 1983 OK CIV APP 31, 665 P.2d 327. The county assessor also relied on an argument stating a specific procedure required by the ad valorem provisions in Title 68 of the Oklahoma Statutes controlled the more general provisions providing interest on a judgment in Title 12 of the Oklahoma Statutes. ¶5 Taxpayers replied and argued that in Sanders the Court rejected the specific-controls-general argument when it concluded interest on a judgment against a state entity should be paid based upon the interest-on-judgments statute in 15 O.S.1951 § 274, and this general statute controlled the specific statute at issue in Sanders , 40 O.S.1951 § 224. 5 The assessor disagreed with taxpayers' analysis. ¶6 The District Court granted taxpayers' motion for postjudgment interest pursuant to 12 O.S. § 727.1 and awarded $4,385.67 for interest on one parcel and $38,215.29 for interest on a second parcel. The Tulsa County Assessor appealed and this Court sua sponte retained the appeal.