VIMY RIDGE MUN. WATER IMP. v. Ryles

284 S.W.3d 70
CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas
DecidedMay 8, 2008
Docket07-1262
StatusPublished

This text of 284 S.W.3d 70 (VIMY RIDGE MUN. WATER IMP. v. Ryles) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
VIMY RIDGE MUN. WATER IMP. v. Ryles, 284 S.W.3d 70 (Ark. 2008).

Opinion

284 S.W.3d 70 (2008)

VIMY RIDGE MUNICIPAL WATER IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 139 OF LITTLE ROCK and The Bank of New York Trust Company, N.A., Appellants,
v.
J.A. RYLES; G.P. Ryles; Guy Maris; Rylwell, LLC; John Ryles; Whitwell, Inc.; and Mark Wilcox, Commissioner of State Lands State of Arkansas, Appellees.

No. 07-1262.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

May 8, 2008.

*71 Riable & Crabtree, by: Mark Riable, Little Rock, AR, for appellant Vimy Ridge Municipal Water Improvement District No. 139.

Friday, Eldredge & Clark, LLP, by: Larry W. Burks, Little Rock, AR, for appellant The Bank of New York Company, N.A.

Hurley & Whitwell, PLLC, by: Stephen E. Whitwell, North Little Rock, AR, for appellees.

TOM GLAZE, Justice.

Appellants Vimy Ridge Municipal Water Improvement District No. 139 and The Bank of New York Trust Company, (collectively, "Vimy Ridge") appeal an order of the Pulaski County Circuit Court that granted summary judgment in favor of appellees J.A. Ryles; Rylwell LLC; John Ryles; Guy Maris; Whitwell Inc.; and Mark Wilcox, Land Commissioner (collectively, "Ryles"). We affirm.

On October 1, 2004, Vimy Ridge filed a foreclosure action against Ryles and other defendants, claiming that municipal improvement district taxes were delinquent. Ryles argued that Vimy Ridge's foreclosure action was barred by a three-year statute of limitations under Ark.Code Ann. § 14-28-1208 (Repl.1998). At a hearing on summary-judgment motions, Ryles argued that the Little Rock ordinance pertaining to the Vimy Ridge water improvement district taxes did not specify when those taxes became delinquent, but under Ark.Code Ann. § 14-86-1204 (Repl.1998), when a district fails to specify the time of delinquency, the special taxes become delinquent ninety days after those special taxes become "due and payable." Vimy Ridge countered that the ordinance adopted the same collection method as used for general taxes under Title 26, which are due and payable from the first business day of March through October 10, and did not become delinquent until October 10, 2001. Because Vimy Ridge filed its foreclosure action on October 1, 2004, it asserted its action was filed nine days within the three-year statute of limitations.

The circuit court granted Ryles's motion for summary judgment, holding that Ark. Code Ann. § 26-36-201(a) (Repl.1997 and Supp.2007) was not applicable to the improvement district's special taxes at issue. Vimy Ridge appealed the circuit court's ruling, but this court held that there was no record of any disposition regarding defendants "G.P. Ryles, Guy Maris, John Doe(s) and Jane Doe(s)." We dismissed the appeal without prejudice because there was no final order. Vimy Ridge Mun. Water Imp. Dist. No. 139 v. Ryles, 369 Ark. 217, 253 S.W.3d 436 (2007). The trial court issued a final order on August 15, 2007, and Vimy Ridge now repeats the arguments as to the merits it previously presented in its first appeal.

*72 As an initial matter, Ryles contends that this court lacks jurisdiction because Vimy Ridge's second notice of appeal does not reference the final order issued by the trial court on August 15, 2007. Instead, the notice of appeal mentions the summary judgment order entered May 19, 2006. However, the trial court's August 15, 2007 order simply reiterated the previous disposition of the motions for summary judgment, and dismissed with prejudice the defendants unaddressed by the previous order. Under these circumstances, Vimy Ridge's failure to designate the August 15 order in its notice of appeal is not fatal to this appeal. See Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. of Ark., Inc. v. Sudrick, 49 Ark.App. 84, 896 S.W.2d 452 (1995). See also Dugal Logging, Inc. v. Ark. Pulpwood Co., Inc., 336 Ark. 55, 984 S.W.2d 410 (1999) (explaining that an appellant's noncompliance with Ark. R.App. P.-Civ. 3(e) does not render the notice automatically void).

Turning to the merits of this case, we do so by reviewing the trial court's decision in this tax case de novo, but will not disturb the trial court's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. Barclay v. First Paris Holding Co., 344 Ark. 711, 42 S.W.3d 496 (2001); Pledger v. Troll Book Clubs, Inc., 316 Ark. 195, 871 S.W.2d 389 (1994). This court also reviews issues of statutory construction de novo, because it is for this court to decide what a statute means. City of Maumelle v. Jeffrey Sand Co., 353 Ark. 686, 120 S.W.3d 55 (2003). While this court is not bound by the decision of the trial court, in the absence of a showing that the trial court erred in its interpretation of the law, that interpretation will be accepted as correct on appeal. Barclay, supra.

The first rule in considering the meaning and effect of a statute is to construe it just as it reads, giving the words their ordinary and usually accepted meaning in common language. Weiss v. McFadden, 353 Ark. 868, 120 S.W.3d 545 (2003). An additional rule of statutory construction in the area of taxation cases is that when the court reviews matters that involve the levying of taxes, any and all doubts and ambiguities must be resolved in favor of the taxpayer. Barclay, supra. Further, this court has stated that "it is blackletter law for statutory construction to give effect to the specific statute over the general." Id. at 730, 42 S.W.3d at 508 (citing Board of Trustees for City of Little Rock Police Dept. Pension & Relief Fund v. Stodola, 328 Ark. 194, 942 S.W.2d 255 (1997)).

The special tax provision for the Vimy Ridge improvement district is provided for in Little Rock ordinance number 15-513. The relevant section of the ordinance reads as follows:

the assessment ... shall be collected by the County Collector with the first installment of general taxes becoming due in the year 1989 and annually thereafter with the first installment of general taxes until the whole of the local assessment shall be paid.

The ordinance does not specify the date the special taxes are delinquent, and § 14-86-1204 states that when an improvement district fails to specify the date its special taxes become delinquent by ordinance, the delinquency date is ninety days after they first become due and payable.

Vimy Ridge presents two arguments. First, Vimy Ridge asserts that § 26-36-201(a) should be applied to the question of when the improvement taxes become delinquent. That section states that general taxes become delinquent on October 10; therefore, Vimy Ridge argues that the special taxes established in the ordinance also became delinquent on October 10. Vimy Ridge's second argument is that the ordinance *73

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Quapaw Central Business Improvement District v. Bond-Kinman, Inc.
870 S.W.2d 390 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1994)
Pledger v. Troll Book Clubs, Inc.
871 S.W.2d 389 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1994)
City of Maumelle v. Jeffrey Sand Co.
120 S.W.3d 55 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 2003)
Weiss v. McFadden
120 S.W.3d 545 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 2003)
Barclay v. First Paris Holding Co.
42 S.W.3d 496 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 2001)
Vimy Ridge Municipal Water Improvement Dist. No. 139 v. Ryles
253 S.W.3d 436 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 2007)
Dugal Logging, Inc. v. Arkansas Pulpwood Co.
984 S.W.2d 410 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1999)
Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. of Arkansas v. Willa May Sudrick
896 S.W.2d 452 (Court of Appeals of Arkansas, 1995)
Board of Trustees v. Stodola
942 S.W.2d 255 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1997)
Vimy Ridge Municipal Water Improvement District No. 139 v. Ryles
284 S.W.3d 70 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
284 S.W.3d 70, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vimy-ridge-mun-water-imp-v-ryles-ark-2008.