PARTIES. Carolina. She purchased property located at 266 Wallace Fork Road in Halifax County,

Transcription

1

2 PARTIES 2. Plaintiff Shirley Gary is a citizen and resident of Halifax County, North Carolina. She purchased property located at 266 Wallace Fork Road in Halifax County, NC, parcel numbers and in Plaintiff Shirley Gary has owned the property at all times relevant to this complaint. 3. Plaintiff Catherine Hale is a citizen and resident of Halifax County, North Carolina. She purchased property located at 372 Wallace Fork Road in Halifax County, NC, parcel number in Plaintiff Catherine Hale has owned the property at all times relevant to this complaint. 4. Plaintiff Ruth Hampton is a citizen and resident of Halifax County, North Carolina. She purchased property located at 238 Maria Avenue in Halifax County, NC, parcel number in 2005 for $20,000. Plaintiff Ruth Hampton has owned the property at all times relevant to this complaint. 5. Plaintiff Calvin Handsome is a citizen and resident of Halifax County, North Carolina. He owns the property located at 430 Wallace Fork Road in Halifax County, NC, parcel number Plaintiff Calvin Handsome has owned the property at all times relevant to this complaint. 6. Plaintiff Mary Handsome is a citizen and resident of Halifax County, North Carolina. She purchased the property located at 588 Wallace Fork Road in Halifax County, NC, parcel number in 2003 for $10,000. Plaintiff Mary Handsome has owned the property at all times relevant to this complaint. 7. Plaintiff Kathy Harris, also known as Kathy Harris-Ahmed, is a citizen and resident of Warren County, North Carolina. During the years 2007, 2008, and 2009, 2

3 she was a citizen and resident of Halifax County, NC. She purchased property located on Brandy Creek Drive in Halifax County, NC, parcel number in 2000 for $10,000. Plaintiff Kathy Harris owned the property at all times relevant to this complaint, from 2000 until December 2010 when she lost the property to foreclosure. 8. Plaintiff Joyce Harrison is a citizen and resident of Halifax County, North Carolina. She purchased property located on Maria Avenue in Halifax County, NC, parcel number in 2006 for $12,500. Plaintiff Joyce Harrison has owned the property at all times relevant to this complaint. 9. Plaintiff Jocelyn Robinson is a citizen and resident of Halifax County, North Carolina. She purchased property located at 37 Brandy Creek Drive in Halifax County, NC, parcel number in 2002 for $18,000. Plaintiff Jocelyn Robinson has owned the property at all times relevant to this complaint. 10. Plaintiff Louise Williams is a citizen and resident of Halifax County, North Carolina. She and Stephanie Williams purchased property located at 352 Wallace Fork Road in Halifax County, NC, parcel number in 2000 for $12,500 as tenants in common. Plaintiff Louise Williams has owned the property at all times relevant to this complaint. 11. Plaintiffs Ilene Belcher and Danielle Adkins, also known as Danielle Dukes, are citizens and residents of Halifax County, North Carolina. They purchased property located at 113 Brandy Creek Drive in Halifax County, NC, parcel number in 1998 for $7,500. In 2010 Ms. Adkins deeded her interest in the property to Ms. Belcher. Plaintiffs Ilene Belcher and Danielle Adkins owned the property at all times relevant to this complaint. 3

4 12. Plaintiffs Vernon and Joyce Hockaday are citizens and residents of Halifax County, North Carolina. The Hockadays own property located at 386 Wallace Fork Road in Halifax County, NC, parcels numbered and The Hockadays have owned the property at all times relevant to this complaint. 13. Plaintiffs Lewis and Fannie Kee are citizens and residents of Halifax County, North Carolina. The Kees purchased property located at 190 Maria Avenue in Halifax County, NC, parcel number , in 2005 for $14,500. The Kees have owned the property at all times relevant to this complaint. 14. Plaintiffs Mildred and Richer Patterson are citizens and residents of Halifax County, North Carolina. The Pattersons purchased property located at 87 Brandy Creek Drive in Halifax County, NC, parcel number , in 2005 for $9,500. The Pattersons have owned the property at all times relevant to this complaint. 15. Plaintiff Veronica Walker is a citizen and resident of Halifax County, North Carolina. She purchased property located at 322 Wallace Fork Road in Halifax County, NC, parcel number in 2000 for $12,500. Plaintiff Veronica Walker has owned the property at all times relevant to this complaint. 16. Plaintiff Pamela Arrington is a citizen and resident of Halifax County, North Carolina. She purchased property located at 372 Maria Avenue in Halifax County, NC, parcel number in 2006 for $17,500. Plaintiff Pamela Arrington has owned the property at all times relevant to this complaint. 17. Plaintiff Carlton Patterson is a citizen and resident of Halifax County, North Carolina. He purchased property located at 110 Brandy Creek Drive in Halifax 4

5 County, NC, parcel number in 2001 for $13,000. Plaintiff Carlton Patterson has owned the property at all times relevant to this complaint. 18. Defendant Halifax County is a political subdivision organized under the laws of the State of North Carolina. For purposes of this Complaint, Halifax County includes each and every current Halifax County Commissioner in his or her official capacity. 19. Defendant Roanoke Rapids is a municipality organized under the laws of the State of North Carolina. For purposes of this Complaint, Roanoke Rapids includes each and every current member of the Roanoke Rapids City Council in his or her official capacity. 20. Defendant Weldon City Schools ( WCS ) is a public school system organized under the laws of the State of North Carolina. For purposes of this Complaint, WCS includes each and every current member of the Weldon City Schools Board of Education in his or her official capacity. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 21. Venue for this matter is properly in Halifax County pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 1-77, 1-82 and (d). 22. Jurisdiction over this matter is properly in Halifax County Superior Court pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat and 7A-243. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 23. The Brandy Creek and Wallace Fork Road community ( Brandy Creek ) is a working class, African American neighborhood located in Halifax County, North Carolina, just east of I-95 and south of the Town of Weldon, and includes parcels on 5

6 Brandy Creek Drive, Maria Avenue, and the portion of Wallace Fork Road from Aurelian Springs Road to the Carolina Crossroads Parkway. 24. Although outside the municipal boundaries of the City of Weldon, Brandy Creek has been inside the WCS school district at all times relevant to his complaint. 25. In 2005, Brandy Creek and much of the surrounding vacant land was legislatively annexed into the City of Roanoke Rapids, at the city s request, as part of a planned economic development project called the Carolina Crossroads Entertainment District ( Carolina Crossroads ). 26. Carolina Crossroads was predicted to include restaurants, an amusement park, indoor and outdoor music venues, and the Randy Parton Theater as the centerpiece. 27. Annexation of the community by legislative action of the North Carolina General Assembly allowed Roanoke Rapids officials to bypass the statutory notice and municipal service requirements normally required in a city-initiated annexation. 28. Roanoke Rapids never informed Brandy Creek residents of the city s intent to annex the community and never held any public hearings on the proposed annexation. 29. Following the annexation, Brandy Creek residents saw the addition of Roanoke Rapids taxes to their annual property tax bill, which also included taxes paid to Defendants Halifax County and WCS. 30. At all times relevant to this complaint, each of the Plaintiffs paid property taxes to each of the Defendants. 6

7 31. On July 26, 2006, in a single transaction, Rock River Falls, LLC ( Rock River ), a real estate development company, purchased 32 mostly contiguous lots in Brandy Creek for approximately $2,875, The $2,875,000 paid by Rock River was far in excess of the combined tax values assessed by the Halifax County for the 32 lots subject to the purchase. 33. Many of the lots purchased by Rock River were occupied by tenants renting the land or the mobile home located on that land. All those tenants were evicted. 34. As a result of the evictions following the Rock River purchase, Brandy Creek lost nearly half of its residents. 35. On October 23, 2006, Rock River sold parcel number , one of the parcels that were part of the July 26 purchase, to Plaintiff Pamela Arrington for $17,500. The assessed tax value of the parcel at the time was $8, On November 16, 2006, Rock River sold parcel number , one of the parcels that were part of the July 26 purchase, to Plaintiff Joyce Harrison for $12,500. The assessed value of the parcel at the time was $8, In 2007 Halifax County completed is statutorily required octennial, county-wide property tax reassessment ( 2007 Reassessment ). 38. Upon information and belief, in assessing the tax value for land in Brandy Creek, the Halifax County Tax Assessor considered only the Rock River July 26 purchase, and divided the purchase price by the number of lots included in that sale to calculate a per parcel land value of approximately $90, As a result of the 2007 Reassessment, the average assessed land values in Brandy Creek increased an average of 811%. (Attachment A) 7

8 40. Land values for properties located in other areas of the county, in Roanoke Rapids, and in the Weldon School District were not subject to comparable increases. 41. Upon information and belief, elsewhere in Halifax County, the 2007 Reassessment resulted in assessed land value increases, on average, of 34% in Roanoke Rapids, 19% in Halifax County overall (Brandy Creek excluded), and 33% on properties located in a neighborhood immediately adjacent to Brandy Creek. 42. The 2007 Reassessment values of the properties in Brandy Creek were far in excess of the true market value of the properties. 43. In 2010, a small number of Brandy Creek residents wrote to the Halifax County Tax Assessor seeking reconsideration and relief from the inflated assessments. 44. Subsequent to receiving the letters seeking reconsideration, the Tax Assessor revised the inflated values for all the properties in Brandy Creek, not only the specific parcels owned by the residents who initially contacted the Assessor s office. 45. The revised 2010 assessments were much lower than the 2007 Reassessment values. The 2010 reassessment made Brandy Creek land values more consistent with the 2007 Reassessment value ranges for similarly situated properties throughout Halifax County. 46. Despite the 2010 revision to the inflated property tax values, none of the Defendants provided or offered any of the Plaintiffs a refund for the property taxes that each Defendant had collected pursuant to the inflated assessments. 47. Plaintiff Shirley Gary owns two properties in Brandy Creek, parcels numbered and , respectively. Prior to the 2007 Reassessment, the land of parcel was valued at $6,830. Following the 2007 Reassessment, the assessed 8

9 land value rose to $62,110, an 809% increase. In 2010 Defendant Halifax County assessed the land at $11, Prior to the 2007 Reassessment, the land of parcel was valued at $9,320. Following the 2007 Reassessment, the assessed land value rose to $92,070, an 888% increase. In 2010 Defendant Halifax County assessed the land at $13, Plaintiff Catherine Hale owns parcel number in Brandy Creek. Prior to the 2007 Reassessment the land was valued at $8,120. Following the 2007 Reassessment, the assessed land value rose to $41,870, a 416% increase. In 2010 Defendant Halifax County assessed the land at $12, Plaintiff Ruth Hampton owns parcel number in Brandy Creek. Prior to the 2007 Reassessment the land was valued at $9,020. Following the 2007 Reassessment, the assessed land value rose to $75,610, a 738% increase. In 2010 Defendant Halifax County assessed the land at $13, Plaintiff Calvin Handsome owns parcel number in Brandy Creek. Prior to the 2007 Reassessment the land was valued at $8,260. Following the 2007 Reassessment, the assessed land value rose to $85,040, a 930% increase. In 2010 Defendant Halifax County assessed the land at $12, Plaintiff Mary Handsome owns parcel number in Brandy Creek. Prior to the 2007 Reassessment the land was valued at $8,600. Following the 2007 Reassessment, the assessed land value rose to $73,600, a 756% increase. In 2010 Defendant Halifax County assessed the land at $12, Plaintiff Kathy Harris owned parcel number in Brandy Creek. Prior to the 2007 Reassessment the land was valued at $8,210. Following the

10 Reassessment, the assessed land value rose to $69,390, a 745% increase. In 2010 Defendant Halifax County assessed the land at $12, Plaintiff Joyce Harrison owns parcel number in Brandy Creek. Prior to the 2007 Reassessment the land was valued at $8,840. Following the 2007 Reassessment, the assessed land value rose to $74,530, a 743% increase. In 2010 Defendant Halifax County assessed the land at $13, Plaintiff Jocelyn Robinson owns parcel number in Brandy Creek. Prior to the 2007 Reassessment the land was valued at $16,930. Following the 2007 Reassessment, the assessed land value rose to $78,270, a 365% increase. In 2010 Defendant Halifax County assessed the land at $13, Plaintiff Louise Williams owns parcel number in Brandy Creek. Prior to the 2007 Reassessment the land was valued at $11,000. Following the 2007 Reassessment, the assessed land value rose to $84,930, a 672% increase. In 2010 Defendant Halifax County assessed the land at $12, Plaintiffs Ilene Belcher and Danielle Adkins owned parcel number in Brandy Creek at all times relevant to this complaint. Prior to the 2007 Reassessment the land was valued at $8,510. Following the 2007 Reassessment, the assessed land value rose to $71,610, a 741% increase. In 2010 Defendant Halifax County assessed the land at $13, Plaintiffs Vernon and Joyce Hockaday own parcels numbered and in Brandy Creek. Prior to the 2007 Reassessment, the land of parcel was valued at $5,250. Following the 2007 Reassessment, the assessed land 10

11 value rose to $81,400, a 1,450% increase. In 2010 Defendant Halifax County assessed the land at $12, Prior to the 2007 Reassessment, the land of parcel was valued at $5,340. Following the 2007 Reassessment, the assessed land value rose to $82,590, a 1,447% increase. In 2010 Defendant Halifax County assessed the land at $12, Plaintiffs Lewis and Fannie Kee own parcel number in Brandy Creek. Prior to the 2007 Reassessment the land was valued at $9,680. Following the 2007 Reassessment, the assessed land value rose to $79,560, a 722% increase. In 2010 Defendant Halifax County assessed the land at $13, Plaintiffs Richer and Mildred Patterson own parcel number in Brandy Creek. Prior to the 2007 Reassessment the land was valued at $8,280. Following the 2007 Reassessment, the assessed land value rose to $69,910, a 744% increase. In 2010 Defendant Halifax County assessed the land at $12, Plaintiff Veronica Walker owns parcel number in Brandy Creek. Prior to the 2007 Reassessment the land was valued at $8,370. Following the 2007 Reassessment, the assessed land value rose to $86,120, a 930% increase. In 2010 Defendant Halifax County assessed the land at $13, Plaintiff Pamela Arrington owns parcel number in Brandy Creek. Prior to the 2007 Reassessment the land was valued at $8,480. Following the 2007 Reassessment, the assessed land value rose to $72,370, a 753% increase. In 2010 Defendant Halifax County assessed the land at $12, Plaintiff Carlton Patterson owns parcel number in Brandy Creek. Prior to the 2007 Reassessment the land was valued at $8,210. Following the

12 Reassessment, the assessed land value rose to $69,390, a 745% increase. In 2010 Defendant Halifax County assessed the land at $12, On November 1, 2011, Plaintiffs, through Counsel, each sent a written request to each of the Defendants for a refund of difference between the amount of property tax that should have been collected, based on the corrected 2010 valuation, and the amount paid pursuant to the inflated value for the tax years 2007, 2008 and In support of their demand for a refund and as a defense to the collection of the property taxes, Plaintiffs each asserted that the taxes in question were illegal. 67. On January 3, 2012, Plaintiffs appeared at a meeting of the Halifax County Board of Commissioners in support of their demand for refund. Representatives of Roanoke Rapids were also present. 68. No action was taken by the Commissioners at that time. 69. On January 13, 2012, Defendant WCS, through counsel, declined to provide tax refunds to Plaintiffs, stating that that WCS is not in a position to respond to your factual allegations and are not the proper recipients of your refund demand. 70. On January 23, 2012, the Halifax County Board of Commissioners voted 5-1 to deny Plaintiffs request for refunds of property taxes. This decision was reaffirmed in a letter from the County Attorney dated January 25, Although the Roanoke Rapids City Council voted on February 14, 2012 to deny Plaintiffs request for refunds of property taxes, Roanoke Rapids never provided a written or other direct response to any of the Plaintiffs regarding their request for tax refunds. 12

13 72. In refusing to refund Plaintiffs illegally collected taxes, the Defendants acted willfully, wantonly, and with intentional disregard to the Plaintiffs statutory and constitutional rights. 73. Upon information and belief, each of the Defendants has waived any claim to sovereign immunity through the purchase of liability insurance or participation in a local government risk pool. forth herein. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (N.C. General Statute ) 74. Paragraphs 1-73 are realleged and incorporated by reference as if fully set 75. The excess property taxes collected by each of Defendants were illegal and based on illegally inflated assessment values of Plaintiffs properties. 76. Mandatory state statutes govern property tax assessment, including, inter alia, N.C.G.S , which requires that the assessor evaluate each tract, parcel, or lot separately listed at least its advantages and disadvantages as to location... commercial... uses, [and] probably future income. 77. The Halifax County Tax Assessor failed to consider individual parcels in Brandy Creek separately listed. Instead, the assessor illegally based the value on a fractional portion of the collective sale of a large number of nearby and contiguous properties, which had much greater commercial use and potential future income. 78. The tax assessment did not follow the requirements of , the resulting tax was therefore illegal under The inflated valuation of properties in Brandy Creek and all taxes collected pursuant to those valuations illegally violated N.C.G.S (a), as the 13

14 procedure used for these valuing these properties was not uniform with respect to the rest of the county. 80. The tax assessment was not uniform as required by ; the resulting tax was therefore illegal under The inflated valuation of properties in Brandy Creek and all taxes collected pursuant to those valuations illegally violated N.C.G.S , which requires that all property be taxed according to its true value in money or market value. 82. The valuations did not represent the true value in money as required by ; the resulting tax was therefore illegal under Defendant Halifax County assessed the land in Brandy Creek by different rules and classifications than property elsewhere in the county. 84. The classification of Plaintiffs property was not made by general law uniformly applicable as required by Article V Section 2(2) of the N.C. Constitution. 85. The resulting tax was unconstitutional and therefore illegal under Taxes collected pursuant to the 2007 valuation in Brandy Creek illegally created an improper distinction between taxpayers who own the same class of property, in violation of the equal protection clauses of the North Carolina Constitution. 87. The resulting tax was unconstitutional and therefore illegal under

15 forth herein. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Article I Section 19 N.C. Constitution) 88. Paragraphs 1-87 are realleged and incorporated by reference as if fully set 89. Taxes collected pursuant to the 2007 valuation in Brandy Creek illegally created an improper distinction between taxpayers who own the same class of property, in violation of the equal protection clauses of the North Carolina Constitution. 90. Article V Section 2(2) of the N.C. Constitution, which states that No class of property shall be taxed except by uniform rule, and every classification shall be made by general law uniformly applicable in every county, city and town, and other unit of local government, establishes there is no legitimate government interest in treating one group of taxpayers differently than others that own the same class of property. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Unjust Enrichment) 91. Paragraphs 1-90 are realleged and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. 92. Defendants Roanoke Rapids and WCS have stated that if there were any illegal collection of property taxes, they relied on the values of the properties set by the county tax assessor and are therefore not liable to Plaintiffs. 93. The North Carolina Constitution requires that government entities exercise their power of taxation in a just and equitable manner Art. V Sec. 2(1). 94. Defendants have received and enjoyed the financial benefits of the property taxes collected from the Plaintiffs. 15

16 95. As a result of the illegal tax payments received by all three Defendants, Plaintiffs have suffered severe and particular hardship not imposed on similarly situated property owners in Halifax County., 96. Tax increases ranging from % caused several Plaintiffs to make late payments, face high penalties and interest, have wages garnished, and even to abandon their homes. 97. Even if Defendants contentions about their statutory liability are correct, the Defendants unjust and arbitrary actions have inflicted a loss on the residents of Brandy Creek for which those residents have not adequate remedy. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Court grant the following relief: 1. That Plaintiffs be awarded damages including, without limitation, compensatory, and consequential in an amount to be determined at trial, plus interest, in excess of $10,000 as allowed by law; 2. That the costs of this action, including attorneys fees, as allowed by law, be taxed against Defendants; 3. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. 16

17

18 Brandy Creek Property Values: 2006 and 2007 $100,000 Attachment A 2006 and 2007 Tax Assessment Values $90,000 $80,000 $70,000 Assessment Value $60,000 $50,000 $40, Assessed Land Value 2007 Assessed Land Value $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 $0 Tax Parcel Number