Court Opinion

ID: 9568798
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:07:39.295665+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:08:45.887602
License: Public Domain

Kaul, J.,
concurring: I concur in the court’s disposition of this appeal. However, I would emphasize my reasoning in reaching the determination. Roberts testified, as found by the trial court, that he considered economic or functional obsolescence in promulgating the 1964 schedule. Whether he did or not is irrelevant to the disposition of this case, because the schedule makes no provision for such allowance. Hence, the county assessor was not directed to apply the factor in assessing appellants’ properties and as a practical matter was prevented from so doing by reason of the omission of the factor from the schedule.
The result is a clear violation of the mandate of K. S. A. 79-503(cZ), arbitrary per se and constitutes constructive fraud.
The court’s reversal of the judgment is eminently correct.