Court: Supreme Court of Vermont; September 1, 1981; Vermont; State Supreme Court
Plaintiffs Rooney Vermont Associates and Green Mountain Racing Corporation own property in Pownal, where taxes were assessed in 1979. The Town of Pownal decided to collect taxes through the town treasurer but did not set a discount payment date as required by 32 V.S.A. 4774. Consequently, under 32 V.S.A. 4792, the treasurer was obligated to post tax notices in three public places and mail notifications to each taxpayer regarding tax rates, amounts, and due dates. The treasurer posted notices in four locations, but these were made ninety-six days prior to the due date of November 4, 1979, which exceeded the statutory requirement of posting no less than thirty and no more than ninety days in advance. Additionally, personal notices were mailed to plaintiffs outside the ninety-day window.
When the taxes remained unpaid by the due date, the treasurer issued a warrant for the delinquent taxes, which was then delivered to the tax collector. The tax collector subsequently mailed delinquent notices to the plaintiffs. On November 15, 1979, the plaintiffs attempted to pay their taxes marked 'Payment Under Protest,' but did not include an eight percent collector’s fee, which the treasurer refused to accept as the matter had been handed over to the tax collector. The tax collector also rejected the payment, claiming entitlement to the fee. The Town had also enacted a one percent monthly interest charge on unpaid taxes starting December 1, 1979.
The plaintiffs filed an amended declaratory action seeking a court ruling that their attempted payment exempted them from interest and fees, and that the Town could not initiate a tax sale of their property. They also contested the Town's assessment of their property's fair market value. The court ruled against the plaintiffs on all counts, affirming that their argument regarding interest and penalties was based on the erroneous belief that the treasurer's early notice invalidated the collection of interest and penalties. The court found that the cited cases by the plaintiffs involved different procedural failures and did not support their argument.
Plaintiffs assert that legislative provisions were designed to protect taxpayers, but the court found the notice period adequate, as notices were posted 96 days before the tax collection due date, with no evidence suggesting they were removed early. The statute in question does not define a specific time for mailing notices, and the court emphasized a standard of substantial compliance rather than strict adherence. In contrast, strict compliance was mandated in cases involving zoning procedures due to their impact on property rights.
Plaintiffs argued that the treasurer and tax collector should have accepted checks covering all due taxes. However, the treasurer was unable to accept the checks since the tax collection responsibility had been transferred to the tax collector, and the checks were insufficient as they did not include the collector's fee. Acceptance of partial payment would preclude subsequent penalties and interest.
Plaintiff Rooney Vermont Associates challenged the trial court's ruling that it could not contest the Town's fair market value determination of its property. After filing a taxpayer appeal and subsequently withdrawing it, the Town's grand list was certified as valid, and collateral attacks on this list are not permitted without a statutory appeal or a suit to recover taxes being filed beforehand.
Defendants cross-appealed for attorneys' fees under 32 V.S.A. 5258, claiming fees incurred for preparing a tax sale should be reimbursed, but the court ruled that the claim was not ripe since the tax sale had not yet occurred. The trial court's decision to allow the sale to proceed was affirmed, with the possibility of addressing fees after the sale.
