Brock v. North Carolina Property Tax Commission

Full text

DONALD P. BROCK J. K. WARREN, JR. W. B. HARGETT H. C. BELL MARY ELIZABETH BROCK McDANIEL P. NELSON BANKS HAROLD H. BATE R. C. TYNDALL, JR. G. B. FOY C. C. JONES, JR. W. W. BRAFFORD ROBERT R. RIGGS ERNEST B. RIGGS HAROLD RIGGS FRED D. RIGGS RUSSELL J. RIGGS DALTON EUBANKS RALPH NOBLES JERRY T. RIGGS J. C. ARTHUR E. N. RIGGS W. H. RIGGS ALTON ARTHUR C. B. ARTHUR BEN DILLAHUNT THOMAS ARTHUR C. FELIX HARVEY JULIAN G. HOFMANN CARLTON A. POLLACK MRS. ORA D. POLLOCK SYLVANUS D. MALLARD EDNA T. MALLARD WILLIAM V. GRIFFIN MRS. V. C. GRIFFIN D. E. TAYLOR HUGH B. OLIVER W. DENFORD EUBANK LINDY HARTSELL CHRIS R. EUBANKS HUBERT L. JENKINS FELTON EUBANKS CORENA ANDREWS W. ARCHIE EUBANKS MR. M. R. WILLIAMS RALPH JONES JOE MONETTE RAY COLLINS RAY HILL MYRAL COLLINS W. W. SIMPSON RICHARD H. PARKER RUDOLPH HUMPHREY ERNEST W. HUMPHREY JESSIE G. BYNUM HAROLD MATTOCKS, JR. WILLIAM F. MATTOCKS J. J. CONWAY R. E. PROVOST CLINTON PHILLIPS EUGENE SIMPSON WAYNE SIMPSON JOHNNY TOLER JOHN H. TOLER ROBERT H. TOLER SAMUEL RIGGS MELVIN E. HARRIS MARY WOOTEN EDWARD MEADOWS CLEVE B. PROVOST, SR. LELA S. EUBANK HERBERT CONWAY ELIJAH RIGGS FURNEY COLLINS HEIRS JAMES A. SIMPSON JOE ED COLLINS JOHN D. CARROWAY MACK O. DANIELS M. O. LaROQUE NEIL RIGGS AUGUSTA FRANKS SPENCER HASKINS, JR. MARTHA LOUISE and GLENNIE HASKINS PRESTON D. REYNOLDS REX MILLS WILLIAM E. KORNEGAY C. V. MILLS FRANK HOWARD ALVA B. HOWARD MARVIN BANKS EARL F. GREENE WILLIAM MILLS NINA T. MILLS HARVEY KING J. E. TURNER, JR. CONRAD JONES LINWOOD F. COX CARL KILLINGSWORTH FRED HILL ESSIE M. WHITE B. B. STANLEY HAZEL H. TURNAGE PRESTON H. BANKS LINWOOD B. SCOTT NANNIE E. SCOTT H. V. WILSON RACHEL K. BANKS ALPHEUS BANKS BEN LANG JOHN PARKS, and HENRY FOSCUE v. NORTH CAROLINA PROPERTY TAX COMMISSION sitting as the STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW N. D. McNAIRY, CHAIRMAN WAYNE A. CORPENING, ROBERT C. BLACK, KYLE HARRINGTON and MRS. E. B. HOWARD, MEMBERS OF THE NORTH CAROLINA PROPERTY TAX COMMISSION sitting as the STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW

Opinions in this case

Majority — Martin
Concurrence — Clark

MARTIN, Judge. Petitioners contend that the North Carolina Property Tax Commission erred in dismissing their appeal without allowing petitioners the opportunity to offer evidence and to be heard on the merits of their appeal. G.S. 105-317 provides that prior to the octennial revaluation of real property in any county, the tax supervisor must prepare countywide valuation schedules to be used by the appraisers in valuing individual tracts of land. When the schedules are approved by the county commissioners, a notice to that effect must be published in a newspaper with general circulation in the county. Within thirty days after publication of the notice, any property owner may contest the schedules by appealing to the Property Tax Commission. After the thirty day period has passed, the schedules may no longer be challenged, and taxpayers appealing the valuation of their property may only contest the application of the schedules to their individual tracts. In the present case, the notice of approval of valuation schedules was published in three newspapers on or before 12 September 1973, and petitioners’ notice of appeal was not filed until 31 May 1974. Petitioners contend that even though their appeal was not filed within 30 days after publication of the notice, it should not have been dismissed. To support this contention, petitioners make several arguments. First, they argue that the county commissioners did not “approve” the valuation schedules as required by the statute, but only “accepted” them. We find this argument to be without merit. Another argument put forth by petitioners is that the newspapers in which the notice of adoption of the valuation schedules was published are not newspapers of general circulation in Jones County. Under G.S. 1-598, the affidavits of publication, signed by employees of the three newspapers in which notice of adoption of the schedules was published, were sufficient to establish that these newspapers had a general circulation in Jones County. A further argument advanced by petitioners is that the provision of the statute allowing notice of adoption of the valuation schedules to be given by publication violates the due process clause of the Constitution. We find this argument to be without merit. [327] Petitioners also argue that they were not challenging the valuation schedules, but rather the application of the valuation schedules to their individual tracts. Petitioners’ notice of appeal and application for hearing clearly show that they were not contending that their own tracts were overvalued in comparison to other land in the county, but were instead contending that all farm land and woods land in Jones County was valued too high. Such a contention amounts to a challenge of the valuation schedules. For the above reasons, the decision of the trial court is Affirmed. Judge Vaughn dissents. Judge Clark concurs.