Arizona Attorney - December 2015

Legal IT Done Right

602-412-5025 | totalnetworks.com/legal

SECURE

Dave & Stephanie Kinsey, Total Networks Owners

More Law Firms Trust Us with their Legal IT Needs.

such would in effect constitute a modification of parent time as well. The appellate court concluded that the trial court must consider the effect on parenting time under such circumstances and specifically address the factors of A.R.S. § 25-403. Baker v. Meyer, 2 CA-CV 15-0107, 4/3/15.

COURT OF APPEALS TAX MATTERS

Specific property use determines classification rather than general use of parcel. The Legislature establishes an assessment classification for property valued by the Assessor and Department of Revenue. Each parcel is assigned to a classification and each classification has a distinct assessment rate. Scottsdale/101 Associates and Vestar owned shopping center developments located on publicly owned land. The Assessor determined a full cash value for the properties and placed them into Class One, the Class with the highest assessment rate. Class One had an assessment rate of between 23. 5 and 25 percent of full cash value for the periods covered by the litigation. Scottsdale/101 Associates and Vestar asserted that while the majority of the improvements in the shopping center developments should be within Class One, the particular improvements consisting of the movie theaters should be within a different classification, Class Nine, reserved for improvements on government property used exclusively for recreation, and other specified, purposes. Class Nine had the lowest, 1 percent, assessment rate. The Court of Appeals agreed, reversing the Tax Court, and holding that Arizona’s classification system does in fact allow for mixed-use parcels and resulting mixed assessment rates in situations such as these. If the characteristics of a particular parcel allow for some of the parcel to be within different classifications, then the parcel should have a mixed assessment rate taking into account the different classification’s assessment rate. The Assessor’s placing of each shopping center completely into Class One was in error. Scottsdale/101 Associates, LLC v. Maricopa County, 1 CA-TX 14-0003, 9/29/15.