(608 P.2d 339)
No. C-1811Supreme Court of Colorado.
Decided March 17, 1980. Rehearing denied March 31, 1980.
Certiorari to review decision of the court of appeals dismissing petitioner’s appeal in West-Brandt Foundation, Inc. v. Carper, 44 Colo. App. 137, 608 P.2d 355, for failure to join a county as an indispensable party to a challenge to the tax exempt status of property in the county.
Reversed
1. PARTIES — County — Mandatory Party — Judicial Review — Tax-Exempt Status — Dependent. Whether county meets the statutory requirement as a mandatory party in an action for judicial review of a decision of the State Board of Assessment Appeals regarding the tax-exempt status of its property depends on whether the county should have been included in the administrative proceeding. (Section 24-4-106(4), C.R.S. 1973 (1979 Supp.).
2. TAXATION — Exemption — Property Tax — Statute. An exemption from property tax is initiated at the state rather than the county level by filing an application for exemption with the administrator pursuant to section 39-2-117, C.R.S. 1973.
3. Tax-Exempt Status — Review — County — Location of Property — Indispensable Party — Negative. In action filed by taxpayer pursuant to section 24-4-106, C.R.S. 1973 (1979 Supp.) for review of a decision of the State Board of Assessment Appeals regarding the tax-exempt status of its property, the county in which the property is located will not be an indispensable party in the district court, since the General Assembly has not required the county’s presence in these cases.
4. Appeal — Loss of Tax-Exempt Status — County — Indispensable Party — No Dismissal — Perfected — Time Limit. Taxpayer’s appeal on the issue of the loss of its tax-exempt status for guest ranch property it owned in county should not have been dismissed for failure to join county as an indispensable party when presence of county was not otherwise required in administrative proceeding and action for judicial review of decision of State Board of Assessment Appeals was perfected within the statutory time limit.
Page 335
Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals
Robert C. Floyd, for petitioner.
J. D. MacFarlane, Attorney General, Richard F. Hennessey, Deputy, Mary J. Mullarkey, Solicitor General, Billy Shuman, Special Assistant, General Legal Services Section, for respondents.
En Banc.
JUSTICE DUBOFSKY delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted certiorari to review the decision of the court of appeals dismissing petitioner’s appeal in West-Brandt Foundation, Inc. v. Carper, 44 Colo. App. 137, 608 P.2d 355 (1978) for failure to join a county as an indispensable party to a challenge to the tax exempt status of property in the county. We reverse.
Petitioner West-Brandt Foundation (West-Brandt) objected to the loss of its tax exempt status for guest ranch property it owns in Clear Creek County. West-Brandt filed an application for exemption with the State Property Tax Administrator (Administrator) pursuant to section 39-2-117, C.R.S. 1973.[1] The Administrator ruled against West-Brandt and appeal was taken to the State Board of Assessment Appeals (Board) pursuant to
Page 336
section 39-2-125, C.R.S. 1973.[2] When the Board ruled against West-Brandt, West-Brandt filed an action in the District Court of Clear Creek County.
The lawsuit named the Administrator and the Board as defendants. No representatives of Clear Creek County, the situs of the property, were named as defendants in the district court.[3] The defendants moved to dismiss on the ground that an indispensable party, Clear Creek County, had not been joined as a party within the statutory period for perfecting the action.[4] The trial court denied the motion and heard the case on the merits. The Court of Appeals, however, determined that the county was an indispensable party and dismissed West-Brandt’s appeal from the trial court’s decision on the merits.
West-Brandt filed under the state Administrative Procedure Act, section 24-4-106, C.R.S. 1973 (1979 Supp.), for judicial review of the Board’s decision. Subsection (4) of section 24-4-106 provides “Every party in the agency action not appearing as plaintiff in such action for judicial review shall be made a defendant.” The Court of Appeals, in dismissing West-Brandt’s appeal, relied on an interpretation of this sentence i Cissell v. Colorado State Board of Assessment Appeals, 38 Colo. App. 560, 564 P.2d 124 (1977).[5] Cissell involved a valuation of property by the assessor in Arapahoe County. The Arapahoe County Board of Equalization was a party to the proceedings before the State Board of Assessment Appeals. The Court of Appeals there held that the language of section 24-4-106 was
Page 337
mandatory and that any person or agency who had been a party to the proceeding before the state agency was required to be included as a party in the action for judicial review.
[1] West-Brandt is factually distinguishable from Cissell because i West-Brandt the county was not a party to the proceedings before the Board of Assessment Appeals. Thus, whether the county meets the statutory requirement as a mandatory party in an action for judicial review depends on whether the county should have been included in the administrative proceeding.
[2,3] An exemption from property tax is initiated at the state rather than the county level by filing an application for exemption with the Administrator. Section 39-2-117, C.R.S. 1973. This gives the Administrator the ability to apply the definitions for exempt property[6]
in a uniform manner throughout the state.[7] At the hearing in this case, all the evidence was about the nature of the use of the property and whether such use met the statewide statutory exemption requirement. Such a statewide concern can be resolved adequately by state officials. Although the county is not barred from participation,[8] the General Assembly has not required the county’s presence in these cases.
[4] The action for judicial review of the decision of the Board was perfected within the statutory time limit, and the appeal should not have been dismissed by the Court of Appeals. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings.
JUSTICE GROVES and JUSTICE LEE do not participate.
Page 338