Montana Attorney General Opinion 16-16

Opinion No. 16. Counties, Classification of --County Commissioners. HELD: For the purpose of classifi- cation of a county, the correction of an error in the total taxable valuation of a county will relate back to the tiifi~ when the correction should prop· erJ-i' have been made and will control ill Lhe classification of the county. December 27, 19;;1. :'AI'. Vernon Hoven County Attorney Plentywood, Montana You inquire whether Sheridan Coun- ty shall stand classified during the OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 15 year 1935, as a sixth or a seventh class county. All counties having a taxable valu- ation of less than $5,000,000, are sev- enth class counties and all counties having a taxable valuation of more than $5,000,000, and less than $10,000- 000, are sixth class counties. (Section -4741, R. C. M. 1921.) The classifica- tion of a county for the ensuing two years is to be determined at the Sep- tember meeting of the county commis- sioners of the county in each even- numbered year. (Section 4742, R. C. M. 1921.) According to the facts submitted it appears that at the time of the September meeting the assessed valu- ation of Sheridan County was some $3,000 less than $5,000,000. The coun- ty had previously been a sixth class county. No re-classification was made at such September meeting and there- after considerable property errone- ously omitted from the assessment roll in 1934, was added to such assess- ment roll 'in order to properly assess the property of said county. At the December meeting of the board of county commissioners, after adding to the assessment roll this prol-'erty which had been previously wrongly omitted, the total valuation of the county was over $5,000,000. The question, therefore, is: should the classification be made in accord- ance with the figures as they existed at the time of the September meeti:lg or should there be included thercir. those items of property which had been previously wrongly omitted and were later assessed in order to corrc"t such omission and which appeared 011 the assessment roll at the time of the December meeting and should have appeared at the time of the Septem- ber meeting? The Classification Law of the State of Montana has existed in a somewhat different form for many years. In the year 1892 the assessed valuation of Yellowstone County was $3,800,000. On October 15, 1892, a portion of the Crow Indian Reservation became a part of Yellowstone CountY'oAlthough this property in the Crow Indian Res- ervation had been assessed in Custer County in the year 1892, by adding the assessed value of same to the valu- ation of Yellowstone County the ag- gregate valuation amounted to more than $4,000,000. At that time the law required that a second class county must have an assessed valuation of oyer $4,000,000. It was held by the Supreme Court of this State that Yel- lowstone County was a second class cOllnty and that the assessed valua- tion of the portion previously assessed in Custer County might be proved by tlle records of Custer County. (State ex reI Herford v. Cook, 14 Mont. 201.) In another case the classification of a county was questioned on the ground that certain items of property as- sessed were improperly included. The Court investigated that matter to de- termine whether or not an error had been made and sustained the county commlssioners in their conclusion as to the classification of the county. (State ex rei. Hauswald v. Ellis, 52 Mont. 505.) It therefore appears that the courts may inquire into the validity of the action of the county commissioners in determining the classification of a county. From this we may conclude that if it appeared that the county commissioners had either by erroneous calculations, omissions or inclusions improperly determined the classifica- tion of a county, same would be cor- rected by the courts. There remains one question to be determined, i. e., does the power to ccrrect errors in the classification of a county include the right to correct the total of the assessed valuation by adding thereto property erroneously omitted therefrom and not discovered or assessed until after the September meeting of the board of county com- missioners? The fact that the assessment roll at the time of the September meet- ing of the county commissioners fail- ed to show an assessed valuation of $5,000,000 was not due to any error upon the part of the county commis- sioners. So far as the record before them went, it appeared that the as- sessed valuation of the county war- ranted the classification of the same only as a seventh class county. Facts which subsequently developed showed that the assessment roll at the time of the September meeting, if all property had been properly assessed, would have exceeded the $5,000,000. 16 OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL It appears that the effect of an er- ror is the same whether it was an error of the county commissioners or of some other person or persons, and that upon the discovery of such error and the correction of the assessment roll such correction would relate back to the time when same should have been properly made. Therefore, the correction of these errors shows that the assessment roll should have ex- ceeded $5,000,000 at the time of the September meeting. The two cases cited heretofore, carried to their log- ical conclusion, appear to require the decision that the county should be classified for the next ensuing two years as a sixth class county.