Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

appealburden of proofjudicial reviewcredibility
appealhearingcredibility

Related Cases

Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228, 109 S.Ct. 1775, 104 L.Ed.2d 268, 49 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 954, 49 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 38,936, 57 USLW 4469
View Case »
Allarcom Pay Television, Ltd. v. General Instrument Corp., 69 F.3d 381, 1995 Copr.L.Dec. P 27,461, 36 U.S.P.Q.2d 1654, 95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8503, 95 Daily Journal D.A.R. 14,671, 1 Communications Reg. (P&F) 834
View Case »
Peterson v. Kennedy, 475 U.S. 1122, 106 S.Ct. 1642, 90 L.Ed.2d 187, 122 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2080, 104 Lab.Cas. P 11,793
View Case »
National Football League v. Miller, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2000 WL 335566, 54 U.S.P.Q.2d 1574
View Case »
Lewis v. Rahman, 147 F.Supp.2d 225
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Peretti v. State, Dept. of Revenue, 383 Mont. 340, 372 P.3d 447, 2016 MT 105

Facts

This case involves a dispute between property owners Michael and Shelley Peretti and the Montana Department of Revenue (DOR) regarding the valuation of their lakeside residential lot. The DOR initially appraised the property at $1,356,201, which the Perettis contested, claiming it did not reflect market conditions. After a series of appeals, the State Tax Appeal Board (STAB) upheld a reduced valuation of $1,192,500 for the land. The Perettis continued to argue for a lower valuation, leading to a judicial review by the District Court, which ultimately reversed the STAB's decision.

This is a dispute between property owners Michael and Shelley Peretti and the DOR over the appraised value of their .461 acre residential lot with 159 feet of Flathead Lake frontage in Lakeside, Montana.

Issue

Did the District Court err in reversing the order of the State Tax Appeal Board concerning the valuation of the property at issue?

Did the District Court err in reversing the order of the State Tax Appeal Board concerning the valuation of the property at issue?

Rule

In judicial reviews of State Tax Appeal Board decisions, the appraisal by the Department of Revenue is presumed correct, and the burden is on the taxpayer to overcome this presumption. A district court must determine if the Board's findings of fact are clearly erroneous and if its conclusions of law are correct, without substituting its judgment for that of the Board regarding the weight of evidence.

In such cases the appraisal reached by the Montana Department of Revenue is presumed to be correct, and the burden is upon the taxpayer to overcome this presumption, Farmers Union Central Exchange v. DOR, 272 Mont. 471, 476, 901 P.2d 561, 564 (1995).

Analysis

The Supreme Court found that the District Court improperly re-weighed the evidence and made determinations on witness credibility, which is not permitted in judicial reviews. The STAB's findings were supported by substantial evidence, including a computer model that analyzed 29 comparable sales, which the Perettis failed to adequately challenge. The court emphasized that the DOR's appraisal was presumed correct and that the Perettis did not meet their burden of proof.

It is clear that the District Court's decision rests upon a re-weighing of the evidence submitted at the STAB hearing, and a re-determination of the credibility of witnesses heard by STAB. While the District Court explains its decision in terms of whether the STAB decision was 'clearly erroneous,' it is clear that there was substantial evidence in the record to support STAB's decision.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the District Court's decision, reinstating the STAB's valuation of the property, as it was supported by substantial evidence.

The District Court is reversed and its Order and Rationale is vacated. The STAB decision is reinstated.

Who won?

The prevailing party in this case is the Montana Department of Revenue, as the Supreme Court reinstated the State Tax Appeal Board's valuation of the Peretti property. The court found that the STAB's decision was based on substantial evidence and that the District Court had erred in its assessment of the evidence and witness credibility. The DOR's appraisal was upheld, affirming the Board's authority in property valuation matters.

The prevailing party in this case is the Montana Department of Revenue, as the Supreme Court reinstated the State Tax Appeal Board's valuation of the Peretti property.

You must be