Preview:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE

BETTY CORLEW THOMAS,

) ) ) Petitioner-Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION; ) KELSEY JONES, Executive Secretary ) State Board of Equalization; ) HELEN JAMES, Administrative Law ) Judge, State Board of Equalization; ) METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF ) NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY; ) PHIL BREDESEN, Mayor, Metropolitan ) Government of Nashville and ) Davidson County; ) METROPOLITAN BOARD OF EQUALIZATION ) FOR NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY; ) JO ANN NORTH, Assessor of Property, ) Metropolitan Government of ) Nashville and Davidson County; and ) CHARLIE CARDWELL, Trustee, ) Metropolitan Government of ) Nashville and Davidson County, ) ) Respondents-Appellees. )

FOR PUBLICATION FILED: MARCH 17, 1997 DAVIDSON COUNTY HON. C. ALLEN HIGH, CHANCELLOR NO. 01-S-01-9601-CH-00002

FILED
March 17, 1997 Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Court Clerk

For Appellant: JOSEPH H. JOHNSTON Nashville, TN

For Appellees: JOHN KNOX WALKUP Attorney General and Reporter CHRISTINE LAPPS Assistant Attorney General Nashville, TN

OPINION

REVERSED AND REMANDED

BIRCH, C.J.

This cause chronicles the efforts of Betty Corlew Thomas, the appellant, to challenge the valuation placed on her home by the Tax Assessor for Metropolitan Nashville-Davidson County. In the

initial stages, Thomas proceeded without a lawyer; it was during this period of self-representation that the administrative judge, employed by the state board of equalization ("state board"), dismissed her appeal.1 Thomas challenged this action, but in the

process, she skipped two of the administrative steps that she could have taken and sought judicial review in the Chancery Court. Finding that Thomas had failed to exhaust her administrative remedies, the trial court dismissed her appeal. Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment. The Court of

Before this Court, Thomas contends first that she was not required by applicable statutes to exhaust her administrative remedies in order to obtain judicial review of the dismissal of her appeal. Second, and alternatively, she insists that even if

exhaustion were ordinarily required, exhaustion was excused in her case because the pertinent issue was primarily one of law. Third, Thomas asserts that she was deprived of her due process rights because the state board's printed notice failed to inform her that the consequence of non-payment of the undisputed portion of the property tax by the due date would be dismissal of her appeal.

Because the statute does not require Thomas to exhaust her administrative remedies and because the state board provided

As is discussed in more detail infra, Thomas's appeal to the state board of equalization was dismissed because she did not pay the undisputed portion of her property tax when due. 2

1

her

inconsistent

and

misleading

information

regarding

certain

aspects of the administrative appeal process, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the cause to the state board for a hearing to determine the proper valuation of her property for the year 1993.

I

The procedure prescribed for the appeal of the property tax valuation of one's real estate by the assessor is a tedious one. It is better understood if we enumerate the steps in the

process first and then detail the events that occurred in this case.

By assessor's

statute, valuation

an of

aggrieved property

taxpayer to the

may county

appeal board

the of

equalization. Tenn. Code Ann.

Download thomasbd.pdf

Tennessee Law