Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 9-786 / 08-0473 Filed December 17, 2009 ALAN H. KIRSHEN and JEAN P. KIRSHEN, Petitioners-Appellants, vs. STACY VON DIELINGEN, Individually and As Montgomery County Assessor, and BOARD OF REVIEW OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, Respondents-Appellees. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Montgomery County, James H. Heckerman, Judge.

Petitioners appeal the district court's rulings dismissing claims a gainst the county assessor and finding it had no jurisdiction to consider the claims against the county board of review. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED. Jean P. Kirshen, Red Oak, appellant pro se. Alan H. Kirshen, Red Oak, appellant pro se. M. Brett Ryan, Frank W. Pechacek, Jr., and Bruce B. Green, of Willson & Pechacek, P.L.C., Council Bluffs, for appellees.

Considered by Sackett, C.J., Vaitheswaran, J., and Miller, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2009).

2

SACKETT, C.J. Appellants, Alan H. and Jean P. Kirshen, appeal from the dismissal on jurisdictional grounds of their appeal to the district court from a determination on review by the board of review of Montgomery county (Board), of the real estate assessment on real estate they own in the county. They contend, among other things, (1) the district court erred in dismissing the county assessor Stacy Von Dielingen (Assessor), as an unnecessary party, and (2) the district court erred in dismissing their appeal for lack of proper service and jurisdiction. We affirm the district court's ruling dismissing the action against Stacy Von Dielingen, individually. As to the Board, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. I. SCOPE OF REVIEW. Tax assessmant appeals are equitable in nature; therefore, our review is generally de novo. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4; Soifer v. Bd. of Review, 759 N.W.2d 775, 782 (Iowa 2009); Riley v. Bd. of Review, 549 N.W.2d 289, 290 (Iowa 1996). However, we review the district court's ruling on the

motions to dismiss for errors at law. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4; Ritz v. Wapello County Bd. of Supervisors, 595 N.W.2d 786, 789 (Iowa 1999); McCormick v. Meyer, 582 N.W.2d 141, 144 (Iowa 1998). II. BACKGROUND AND PROCEEDINGS. On April 15, 2007, Stacy Von Dielingen, acting as the Montgomery county assessor, notified appellants that property they owned legally described as "Lots 7 through 9, Block 13, Original Plat of the city of Red Oak, Iowa," was assessed at $192,120. On May 3, 2007, appellants filed a petition with the Board appealing the assessment. On May 30, 2007, the Board reduced the appellants' assessment to $174,690.

3

The appellants, on June 18, 2007, filed an appeal in the district court naming Stacy Von Dielingen, individually and as Assessor, and the Board, as respondents. They alleged that the Board and the Assessor erred in multiple ways and requested relief. An original notice naming both the Assessor and the Board as respondents was signed by the Montgomery county clerk of court and delivered to the Montgomery county sheriff for service. The directions for service told the sheriff to serve the Board by serving the Assessor with copies for each member and to serve the Assessor in the same manner. Two documents titled "Return of Service" from the sheriff were filed. One bore the word "Substitute" and showed "by Serving Von Dielingen, Stacy for Board." The second bore the word "Official" and showed "By Serving Montgomery County Assessor." A motion to dismiss by Stacy Von Dielingen, individually and as Montgomery County Assessor, was filed. It was signed by attorney Bruce B. Green and showed he was from the firm of Willson & Pechacek, P.L.C. The motion also showed this firm as representing the Board. The motion, among other things, stated that: The relief 441.38 from a Review. In this admits that it is case. sought by the taxpayer is pursuant to Iowa Code

Download ALAN H. KIRSHEN and JEAN P. KIRSHEN, Petitioners-Appellants, vs. STACY VON DIELI

Iowa Law