Alaska Supreme Court Opinions made Available byTouch N' Go Systems and Bright Solutions


Touch N' Go
®, the DeskTop In-and-Out Board makes your office run smoother.

 

You can search the entire site. or go to the recent opinions, or the chronological or subject indices. Brandner v. Municipality of Anchorage (6/13/2014) sp-6913

Brandner v. Municipality of Anchorage (6/13/2014) sp-6913

         Notice:  This opinion is subject to correction before publication in the PACIFIC  REPORTER .  

         Readers are requested to bring errors to the attention of the Clerk of the Appellate Courts,  

          303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, phone (907) 264-0608, fax (907) 264-0878, email  

                                                                                         

          corrections@appellate.courts.state.ak.us.  



                    THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA  



SHEILA C. BRANDNER,                                      )  

                                                         )        Supreme Court No. S-15144  

                            Appellant,                   )  

                                                         )        Superior Court No. 3AN-12-07520 CI  

         v.	                                             )  

                                                         )        O P I N I O N  

MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE,  )  

                                                         )        No. 6913 - June 13, 2014  

                            Appellee.	                   )
  

                                                         )
  



                   Appeal from the Superior Court of the State of Alaska, Third  

                                                                                      

                   Judicial District, Anchorage, Andrew Guidi, Judge.  



                   Appearances:    Sheila  C.  Brandner,  pro  se,  Anchorage,  

                   Appellant.  Pamela D. Weiss, Assistant Municipal Attorney,  

                                                                            

                   and Dennis A. Wheeler, Municipal Attorney,  Anchorage, for  

                                                                      

                   Appellee.     



                   Before: Fabe, Chief Justice, Winfree, Stowers, Maassen, and  

                                 

                   Bolger, Justices.  



                   BOLGER, Justice.  



I.        INTRODUCTION  



                   Sheila Brandner appeals the Anchorage Municipal Board of Equalization's  

                                                                                           



(the Board's) valuation of her home for the 2012 tax year.  She argues that the Municipal  

                                                                                                   



assessor's office used an improper appraisal method and that the Board overestimated the  

                                                                                



value  of  her  property.    We  conclude  that  the  Board  made  a  clerical  error  in  the  

                     


----------------------- Page 2-----------------------

calculation of the value of Brandner's property.  We therefore remand to the Board to  



adopt a final assessment of $420,700, which is consistent with the Board's intent.  



      

II.        FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS  



                                                                   

                     The property at issue in this appeal is a single-family residence on a 1.17  



              

acre lot in the Spring Hills Estates community of Anchorage.  At Brandner's request,  



Municipality  of  Anchorage  assessor  Lucito  Muñoz  and  his  supervisor,  John  Dyson,  



inspected the property on June 20, 2011.  According to Muñoz's testimony, they noticed       



that the house had some defects, and so gave it a "fair," or below average, rating.  Based  



on  their  inspection  and  a  comparison  of  other  like  properties,  they  concluded  that  

                                           



Brandner's property was worth $499,400.  



                     Brandner appealed the assessment, claiming that it overvalued her property  

                                                                                                                      



"by a long shot."  In preparation for her appeal before the Board, Brandner obtained an  



independent appraisal and several repair estimates from local contractors.  Her appraiser,  



Paige Hodson, valued the property at $385,000, and the contractors estimated that repair  

                                                                                                          



work on the house would cost between $120,000 and $140,000.  



                     Although Brandner sought to introduce copies of the appraisal and estimates  



during a hearing before the Board, she was not permitted to do so because she had failed  

                                                                                          



to submit the evidence by the required deadline.  However, the Board allowed her to  



testify as to the substance of those documents.  



                     The Board held a hearing concerning Brandner's appeal on March 27, 2012.  



During the hearing, Brandner and Hodson argued that the Municipality's appraisal did  



not adequately take into account the poor condition of the property.  To support their  



argument, they testified to Hodson's appraisal and the three repair estimates.  



                                                                  -2-                                                           6913
  


----------------------- Page 3-----------------------

                   Muñoz responded that his appraisal did take into account the property's  



                                                                                                             1 

below-average condition.  He testified that the property is worth $560,700,  but that he 



subtracted about $61,000 to account for defects he observed during his inspection.  He  



therefore concluded that $499,400 was a fair estimate of the property's value.  



          At the end of the hearing, the Board concluded that Brandner had shown that the  



property required about $140,000 of repair work to restore it to good condition.  Adopting  

                                                                                                                 



a base value of $567,000, the Board concluded that the property was worth $427,000  

                                                       



before repairs.  



                   Brandner asked the Board to reconsider its decision, arguing that the Board  



committed error by adopting the Municipality's base value estimate and that one of the  



Board members asked questions that were harassing and intimidating.  She also objected  

                                                                                                      



to the Board's exclusion of her documentary evidence, claiming that her "significant  

                                                                    



efforts" to file the documents by the Board's deadline "were repeatedly and brutally  

                                                                                            



thwarted."  The Board denied Brandner's request for reconsideration.  



                   Brandner appealed to the superior court, making substantially the same  

                                                 



arguments  that  she  made  in  her  request  for  reconsideration.    The  court  affirmed  the  

                                                                   



Board's decision, concluding that it "was well within the Board's discretion" to adopt the  

                                                                   



Municipality's estimate of the property's value rather than Hodson's and that Brandner  



had not shown that "the Board applied a fundamentally wrong principle of valuation or  

                             



engaged in fraud."  Brandner now appeals to this court.  



          1        The Board heard this as $567,000.  

             



                                                             -3-                                                          6913  


----------------------- Page 4-----------------------

III.          STANDARD OF REVIEW  



                            In  administrative  appeals,  we  independently  review  the  merits  of  the  

underlying administrative decision.2  

                                                                             Because "real property assessments encompass  



questions of fact and law that involve agency expertise," we apply the "reasonable basis  



standard  of  review  to  determine  whether  the  Board  properly  valued  a  parcel  of  real  

estate."3  

                   This is a deferential standard of review, and the Board's decision will be upheld          



"so long as there was no fraud or clear adoption of a fundamentally wrong principle of   

valuation."4  An agency adjudicator's decision to exclude evidence is reviewed for abuse  



of discretion.5  



IV.           DISCUSSION  



                                                                                                                                        

                           Brandner argues, first, that the base value adopted by the Board is arbitrary  



and has no basis in the record.  The Municipality responds that the Board's estimate is  



supported by substantial evidence.  



                           During the hearing, Muñoz testified that the property should be valued at  



"five sixty seven hundred."  Although that phrase is ambiguous, it appears that Muñoz  

            



was using a shorthand to refer to a figure of "five [hundred and] sixty [thousand,] seven  

                                                               



hundred [dollars]" or "$560,700."  And the record supports the conclusion that Muñoz  

                                                                        



meant $560,700.  First, he testified that the "five sixty seven hundred" figure was based  

                                                                                                     



on $204,600 for the land and $356,100 for the improvements, which equals $560,700.  

                                                                                   



              2             Varilek v. Burke, 254 P.3d 1068, 1070 (Alaska 2011).  



              3            Id. at 1071.  



              4            Horan v. Kenai Peninsula Borough Bd. of Equalization , 247 P.3d 990, 998  



(Alaska 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted).  



              5            Stein v. Kelso, 846 P.2d 123, 126 (Alaska 1993).  



                                                                                      -4-                                                                               6913
  


----------------------- Page 5-----------------------

                                                  

Second, Muñoz testified that he arrived at $499,400, his final estimate of the property's  



value, by subtracting about $61,000 from "five sixty seven hundred."  



                    The record supports Muñoz's testimony that the property would be worth  

                                                                                  



approximately $560,700 after repairs. Muñoz appraised the land using a market-adjusted  

                                                                      



cost approach, valuing the property as the unimproved land value plus the depreciated  



                                                          6  

replacement cost of the improvements.   The property appraisal report indicates that the  



land was assessed at $204,600, the value that the Board ultimately adopted.  The house  

                                                 



was estimated at a base cost of $364,000 and a replacement cost of $429,500.  These  

                                                                        



estimates support Muñoz's testimony that the house is worth at least $356,100.  The  



replacement cost of the house was then reduced to account for various economic factors,  

                               



apparently including the cost of repairs, to yield a final estimate of $293,700.  



                    The Board accepted the Municipality's estimate of the value of the land plus  



the replacement cost of the building.  However, all three Board members apparently  



misunderstood Muñoz's  testimony, and they adopted $567,000 as the value of the land  

                                                        



plus the replacement cost of the house.  Turning to Brandner's repair estimates, which  

                                                              



ranged  from  $120,000  to  $140,000,    one  Board  member  was  concerned  that  these  

                                          



estimates  did  not  include  upgrades  necessary  to  bring  the  property  into  like-new  



condition.  Another member was concerned that the estimates did not include the cost to  

                                                                                                   



repair the roof, which, according to Brandner, was in disrepair.  The Board eventually  

                                                                                  



decided to adopt the maximum repair estimate that Brandner had submitted to account for  



these unknown variables.  They concluded, therefore, that the fair market value of the  

                                          



          6         Hodson's appraisal defines the replacement cost as "the estimated cost to  

                                                                     

construct,  at  current  prices  as  of  the  effective  appraisal  date,  a  building  with  utility  

                 

equivalent to the building being appraised, using modern materials and current standards,  

design and layout."  



                                                               -5-                                                             6913  


----------------------- Page 6-----------------------

                                                                                                             

property was $567,000 (the Municipality's estimate based on the replacement cost of the  



house) minus $140,000 (the cost of repairs), or $427,000.  



                   The Board clearly intended to rely on the assessor's testimony about the  



replacement  cost  of  the  property.    And  there  was  ample  evidence  supporting  the  



conclusion  that  the  Board  clearly  intended  to  reach:    that  the  fair  market  value  of  



Brandner's property was the assessor's estimate less the $140,000 cost of repairs.  We  



conclude that this case should be remanded so that the Board may enter a final assessed  



value of $420,700, which is consistent with its expressed intent.  



                   Brandner also argues that she was wrongfully prevented from presenting  

                                                   



evidence  at  the  hearing  concerning  the  fair  market  value  of  her  property.                                 The  



Municipality does not respond to this argument.  



                   The Anchorage Municipal Code (AMC) provides that "[d]ocuments to be  

                                                          



submitted as evidence by the appellant [during a Board hearing] must be filed with the  

                                                                                                        



assessor no later than 15 days from the close of the appeal period unless the appellant and  

                                                  



                                             7  

assessor agree to an extension."  

                                                                                                     

                                                Because the appeal period closes 30 days after a tax  



                                                            8  

assessment is mailed to the property owner,                                                            

                                                              evidence must be submitted within 45 days  



of that mailing.  The appellant is precluded from introducing at the Board hearing any  

evidence not submitted by the deadline.9  



         7         AMC 12.05.053(C)(7) (2003).  



         8         AMC 12.05.055(B) (2006).  



         9         See AMC 12.05.053(C)(7) ("Documents to be submitted as evidence by the  



appellant must be filed with the assessor no later than 15 days from the close of the  

appeal period unless the appellant and the assessor agree to an extension.  If an appellant  

                                                            

has refused or failed to provide the assessor or assessor's agent full access to property  

                                   

or records, the appellant shall be precluded from offering evidence on the issues or issues  

affected by that access and those issues shall be decided in favor of the assessor.").  



                                                           -6-                                                     6913
  


----------------------- Page 7-----------------------

                   We have indicated that courts must relax certain court procedures for pro  

se litigants.10                                                                                     

                    But "pro se litigants are expected to make a good faith attempt to comply  



              

with  the  rules  of  procedure,"  and  "absent  this  effort,  the  litigant  may  be  denied  the  



                                                                 11  

leniency otherwise afforded pro se litigants."                                

                                                                    Here, the record suggests that Brandner  



did not make a good faith attempt to comply with the Municipality's deadline.  On the  



contrary, she waited until after the deadline to obtain repair estimates and a commercial  

                                                                                      



appraisal because she thought this evidence might be unnecessary.    



                   Moreover, the Board permitted Brandner to testify concerning the amount  



of the repair estimates and the result of the appraisal, and the Board expressly relied on  

                                                                                                                 



the repair estimates to reduce the assessed value of her property.  We conclude that the  

                                                                                                

Board did not abuse its discretion in its treatment of this evidence.12  

                                                                                                   



V.        CONCLUSION  



                   We REVERSE the superior court's decision and REMAND this case to the  



Board for entry of a final assessed value of $420,700.  



          10       Gilbert v. Nina Plaza Condo Ass'n, 64 P.3d 126, 129 (Alaska 2003).  



          11       Farmer v. State, Dep't of Law , 235 P.3d 1012, 1017 (Alaska 2010) (internal  



quotation marks and alteration omitted).  



          12       Brandner  also  argues  that  one  of  the  Board  members  harassed  and  

                                          

intimidated her during the hearing; however, she does not elaborate on these allegations  

in her brief. This argument is waived for lack of adequate briefing.  Baseden v. State , 174  

                          

P.3d 233, 243 (Alaska 2008) (stating that arguments not adequately briefed are waived).  

                                                            



                                                            -7-                                                          6913  

Case Law
Statutes, Regs & Rules
Constitutions
Miscellaneous


IT Advice, Support, Data Recovery & Computer Forensics.
(907) 338-8188

Please help us support these and other worthy organizations:
Law Project for Psychiatraic Rights
Soteria-alaska
Choices
AWAIC