Warren County Board of Review v. Property Assessment Appeal Board and United Properties Investment, Lc
This text of Warren County Board of Review v. Property Assessment Appeal Board and United Properties Investment, Lc (Warren County Board of Review v. Property Assessment Appeal Board and United Properties Investment, Lc) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 14-1135 Filed February 10, 2016
WARREN COUNTY BOARD OF REVIEW, Plaintiff-Appellant,
vs.
PROPERTY ASSESSMENT APPEAL BOARD and UNITED PROPERTIES INVESTMENT, LC, Defendants-Appellees. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Warren County, Richard B. Clogg,
Judge.
A county board of review appeals the district court’s affirmance of the
appeal board’s decision requiring reclassification of four parcels. AFFIRMED.
Brett Ryan of Watson & Ryan, P.L.C., Council Bluffs, for appellant.
Jessica Braunschweig-Norris and Brad O. Hopkins of Iowa Property
Assessment Appeal Board, Des Moines, for appellee Property Assessment
Appeal Board.
Jess Vilsack of Nyemaster Goode, P.C., Des Moines, for appellee United
Properties Investment LC.
Heard by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ. 2
VAITHESWARAN, Presiding Judge.
The Warren County Board of Review (“Board”) affirmed the county’s
reclassification of certain lots from residential to commercial properties, a
decision which significantly increased the owner’s property tax liability. The
state-wide Property Assessment Appeal Board (“PAAB”) reversed the decision
and returned the properties to a residential classification.
The Board asserts (A) it lacked notice of the owner’s true claim, (B) PAAB
failed to comply with due process, and (C) PAAB’s decision was arbitrary,
capricious, and unsupported by substantial evidence.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
United Properties Investment Company acquired five parcels of land in
Norwalk, Iowa. United Properties tore down the homes on four of these parcels.
In response, Warren County reclassified the four vacant lots as “commercial”
rather than “residential” and increased the assessed value of the land from $0.92
per foot to $3.50 per foot.
United Properties petitioned the Warren County Board of Review for relief,
arguing the property was over-assessed. The Board denied relief, reasoning
United Properties “failed to prove the allegations in their claim.” United
Properties appealed the decisions to PAAB, making the following assertions:
“Vacant Parcel-nothing has changed. Assessment nearly quadrupled. Leave
assessment at previous assessment.”
In its ruling, PAAB acknowledged that United Properties’ claim was “not
perfectly articulated,” but characterized its “overarching claim” as a 3
misclassification of the properties. As noted, PAAB reversed the Board’s
decision after concluding the properties were misclassified.
The Board sought judicial review of the agency decision. See Iowa Code
§ 421.1(5)(c) (2013). The district court affirmed PAAB’s decision and this appeal
followed.
II. Analysis
A. Notice
The Board asserts it lacked notice of the classification issue because
“[n]one of the written protests filed at any level by United [Properties] raised the
issue of the classification of the property in writing” and, at the time of PAAB’s
decision, PAAB had no authority to permit an amendment adding the
classification issue. See Iowa Code § 441.37A (stating “[n]o new grounds in
addition to those set out in the protest to the local board of review as provided in
section 441.37 can be pleaded but additional evidence to sustain those grounds
may be introduced.”); Allen v. Dallas Cty. Bd. of Review, 843 N.W.2d 89, 96-98
(Iowa 2014) (recently concluding a board of review “had the authority to entertain
a request for amendment of the . . . petition and relate it back to the original
filing.”).
We agree United Properties’ notices of appeal to the Board and to PAAB
did not explicitly challenge the reclassification of the properties from residential to
commercial. But the notices to PAAB stated “nothing ha[d] changed” and
asserted the assessments should remain at the previous levels. In addition, at
every stage of the litigation, United Properties’ representative unequivocally
expressed a desire to have Warren County revert to its original, “residential” 4
classification of the property. There is no question the Board had notice of the
nature of United Properties’ claim before PAAB. See Griffin Pipe Prods. Co., Ind.
v. Bd. of Review of Cty. of Pottawattamie, 789 N.W.2d 769, 772 (Iowa 2010)
(stating “the challenge filed by Griffin Pipe was adequate to put the board on
notice of the nature of the protest”).
Because the Board had actual notice of United Properties’ intent to
challenge the change in classification, we need not address the Board’s
contention that, at the time of this appeal, PAAB had no authority to amend the
appeal notice to add a challenge based on the county’s classification of the
property.
B. Due Process
The Board asserts PAAB’s consideration of the classification issue,
purportedly without notice, amounted to a violation of due process. Our
conclusion that the Board had actual notice of United Properties’ intent to pursue
the classification issue disposes of this contention. Accordingly, we find it
unnecessary to address the merits of the due process argument or PAAB’s
responsive arguments.
C. Arbitrary, Capricious, Unsupported by Substantial Evidence
The Board next argues PAAB’s decision was arbitrary and capricious and
unsupported by substantial evidence. See Iowa Code § 17A.19(10)(f), (n). The
Board’s argument is premised on PAAB’s consideration of the classification issue
and the claimed absence of evidence on this issue. Suffice it to say the record
includes evidence of the county’s reclassification, its reasons for the
reclassification, and United Properties’ objections to the reclassification. PAAB 5
provided a detailed summary of this evidence and its rationale for rejecting the
board’s decision. PAAB’s decision is supported by substantial evidence of
record and is not arbitrary or capricious.
We affirm the district court’s affirmance of PAAB’s decision requiring
reclassification of United Properties’ four parcels to “residential.”
AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Warren County Board of Review v. Property Assessment Appeal Board and United Properties Investment, Lc, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/warren-county-board-of-review-v-property-assessment-appeal-board-and-iowactapp-2016.