Site search
sponsored by
Home
News
The Nevada Supreme Court ruled Thursday to overturn an appeal by a group of Incline Village homeowners. The decision may have set the locals back, but it hasn't stopped them from pursuing fair treatment by the Washoe County Board of Equalization.
Judge Steven P. Elliott presided in a 4-2 decision that property owners who are fighting an increase in property values are not entitled to personal notice of meetings. The Supreme Court upheld the decision by Washoe County District Judge Steven Elliot, citing the U.S. Supreme Court's decision that personal notice in tax assessment cases is not necessary, and the general three-day notice is sufficient.
Justices Maupin and Agosti, who dissented with the court's decision, said the court decided in favor of the government's administrative convenience rather than due process to citizens.
Maupin and Agosti filed the following statement: "In my view, the majority has engaged in an exercise in statutory interpretation favoring the convenience of government over the people it serves."
Under state law NRS 421.020 the "general public" is entitled to advance notice of at least three business days. Yet another "personal notice", statute NRS 241.034, allows property owners to receive longer advance notice.
The difference between general notice and personal notice is crucial to the homeowners, particularly those whose property is a second or third home.
This includes nearly 50 percent of the property owners, according to Incline Village resident Ted Harris.
"If someone is in Florida when they get notice to appear in court the next day, it's impossible," he said.
Attorney for the group, Suellen Fulstone, applauds the group for being proactive in taking action to provide "full, fair hearings" for property owners who are not satisfied.
"There has been a tendency in the past for the County Board of Equalization to deny appeals," she said.
Harris said the State Board of Equalization usually gives 21-day advance notice of an appeals hearing.
The court states in its Order of Affirmance that "with respect to property assessments, due process does not require the same level of notice and hearing as is required for judicial proceedings."
In other words, citizens' rights to due process regarding fair taxation are not important enough, according to justices Rose, Becker, Gibbons and Douglas. The justices also argue in the Order that it makes more sense to give notice to the property than to the person who owns it:
"If we were to adopt the more broad view advocated by the property owners, then the second part of NRS 241.034, which requires personal notice when real property is subject to eminent domain proceedings would be rendered nugatory."
"Justices Maupin and Agosti felt that because people own property, reassessment decisions are truly actions against the person who owns the property and not against the property itself," said Incline resident and Village League president Maryanne Ingemanson. These judges found personal notices to be reasonable.
Their dissent gives Ingemanson and others hope for a future hearing.
"I'm disappointed in the outcome," Fulstone said. "I'm looking at a petition for a rehearing. Taxpayers deserve a fair hearing with adequate notice."
As the dissenting justices said: "The right to own property is a personal right guaranteed under the U.S. and Nevada Constitutions. The notion that a hearing on property revaluation for tax assessment purposes involves no action against the person who owns the property simply cannot be defended."
Ingemanson called the decision and its rationale "damning."
After all, "the statute was designed to protect Nevada citizens from the power of government," she said.
Judge Steven P. Elliott presided in a 4-2 decision that property owners who are fighting an increase in property values are not entitled to personal notice of meetings. The Supreme Court upheld the decision by Washoe County District Judge Steven Elliot, citing the U.S. Supreme Court's decision that personal notice in tax assessment cases is not necessary, and the general three-day notice is sufficient.
Justices Maupin and Agosti, who dissented with the court's decision, said the court decided in favor of the government's administrative convenience rather than due process to citizens.
Maupin and Agosti filed the following statement: "In my view, the majority has engaged in an exercise in statutory interpretation favoring the convenience of government over the people it serves."
Under state law NRS 421.020 the "general public" is entitled to advance notice of at least three business days. Yet another "personal notice", statute NRS 241.034, allows property owners to receive longer advance notice.
The difference between general notice and personal notice is crucial to the homeowners, particularly those whose property is a second or third home.
This includes nearly 50 percent of the property owners, according to Incline Village resident Ted Harris.
"If someone is in Florida when they get notice to appear in court the next day, it's impossible," he said.
Attorney for the group, Suellen Fulstone, applauds the group for being proactive in taking action to provide "full, fair hearings" for property owners who are not satisfied.
"There has been a tendency in the past for the County Board of Equalization to deny appeals," she said.
Harris said the State Board of Equalization usually gives 21-day advance notice of an appeals hearing.
The court states in its Order of Affirmance that "with respect to property assessments, due process does not require the same level of notice and hearing as is required for judicial proceedings."
In other words, citizens' rights to due process regarding fair taxation are not important enough, according to justices Rose, Becker, Gibbons and Douglas. The justices also argue in the Order that it makes more sense to give notice to the property than to the person who owns it:
"If we were to adopt the more broad view advocated by the property owners, then the second part of NRS 241.034, which requires personal notice when real property is subject to eminent domain proceedings would be rendered nugatory."
"Justices Maupin and Agosti felt that because people own property, reassessment decisions are truly actions against the person who owns the property and not against the property itself," said Incline resident and Village League president Maryanne Ingemanson. These judges found personal notices to be reasonable.
Their dissent gives Ingemanson and others hope for a future hearing.
"I'm disappointed in the outcome," Fulstone said. "I'm looking at a petition for a rehearing. Taxpayers deserve a fair hearing with adequate notice."
As the dissenting justices said: "The right to own property is a personal right guaranteed under the U.S. and Nevada Constitutions. The notion that a hearing on property revaluation for tax assessment purposes involves no action against the person who owns the property simply cannot be defended."
Ingemanson called the decision and its rationale "damning."
After all, "the statute was designed to protect Nevada citizens from the power of government," she said.
