Printable Format60-907. Illegal acts of public officers. (a) Illegal tax, charge or assessment. Injunctive relief may be granted to enjoin the illegal levy of any tax, charge or assessment, the collection thereof, or any proceeding to enforce the same.
(b) Unauthorized contracts. Injunctive relief may be granted to enjoin any public officer, board, or body from entering into any contract or doing any act not authorized by law that may result in the creation of an additional levy of a tax, charge or assessment.
(c) Joinder. Any number of persons whose property is or may be affected or whose taxes may be increased by the illegal acts mentioned in subsections (a) and (b) of this section may join in the petition for injunction.
(d) Bond. Where it is shown to the judge that continued procedure under the illegal acts may render the proceedings moot, the judge may, in his or her discretion grant a temporary injunction without bond being required.
History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-907; January 1, 1964.
Source or prior law:
(a) through (c). G.S. 1868, ch. 80, § 253; L. 1885, ch. 153, § 1; L. 1905, ch. 334, § 1; L. 1909, ch. 182, § 265; L. 1917, ch. 247, § 1; R.S. 1923, 60-1121.
Cross References to Related Sections:
Class actions, see 60-223.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
"Kansas Property Taxpayer Remedies," Matthew J. Dowd, 11 W.L.J. 65, 71, 72 (1971).
Mentioned as a limitation on the availability of injunctive relief for violations of the Kansas open meetings act (K.S.A. 75-4317 et seq.), Jerry L. Harper, 43 J.B.A.K. 257, 303 (1974).
"The Kansas Open Meeting Act: Sunshine on the Sunflower State?" Deanell R. Tacha, 25 K.L.R. 169, 201 (1977).
CASE ANNOTATIONS
Prior law cases, see G.S. 1949, 60-1121 and the 1961 Supp. thereto.
1. No change of procedure or substance intended by new law; statute is limited to attacks which admit corporate existence of taxing district. Schulenberg v. City of Reading, 196 K. 43, 45, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 410 P.2d 324.
2. Action by taxpayers to enjoin collection of city assessments against school property; held to be proper parties. Schulenberg v. City of Reading, 196 K. 43, 45, 47, 48, 50, 410 P.2d 324.
3. Action hereunder to enjoin city from making certain street improvements. Graham v. Corporon, 196 K. 564, 565, 413 P.2d 110.
4. Order dismissing action hereunder affirmed. Cities Service Oil Co. v. State Board of Equalization, 199 K. 235, 236, 428 P.2d 456.
5. The expression "illegal levy of any tax, charge or assessment" refers to unauthorized administrative action. Mobil Oil Corporation v. McHenry, 200 K. 211, 213, 234, 239, 248, 249, 255, 436 P.2d 982.
6. Lower court erred in granting summary judgment for defendants in action commenced hereunder. Hund v. City of Easton, 200 K. 272, 273, 436 P.2d 379.
7. Relief hereunder confined to situations where action of governing body of municipality is without authority. Mullins v. City of El Dorado, 200 K. 336, 340, 436 P.2d 837.
8. Action to enjoin financing of flood control plan of watershed district. Barten v. Turkey Creek Watershed Joint District No. 32, 200 K. 489, 497, 438 P.2d 732.
9. Paragraph (a) has reference to action of administrative agency and not judicial matter. Harshbarger v. Board of County Commissioners, 201 K. 592, 594, 596, 442 P.2d 5.
10. Petition to enjoin order of director of property valuation sufficient; jurisdiction of court. Mobil Oil Corporation v. Reynolds, 202 K. 179, 181, 182, 183, 184, 446 P.2d 715.
11. Term "illegal levy of any tax, charge or assessment" construed; petition for injunction upheld. Mobil Oil Corporation v. Reynolds, 202 K. 179, 181, 182, 183, 184, 446 P.2d 715.
12. Mentioned in discussing an action to recover funds for the benefit of a city. Fransham v. McDowell, 202 K. 604, 611, 451 P.2d 131.
13. Applied; individual taxpayer is granted the injunctive remedy to question the right to levy or enforce a tax in certain circumstances. DeForest v. Herbert, 204 K. 516, 517, 520, 522, 464 P.2d 265.
14. Attack on legality of the organization of a hospital district is beyond the capacity of individual litigants. DeForest v. Herbert, 204 K. 516, 520, 522, 464 P.2d 265.
15. Whether relief is sought hereunder or under the tax protest statute (79-2005), the limited scope of the court's jurisdiction in matters of assessment is the same. McManaman v. Board of County Commissioners, 205 K. 118, 122, 123, 468 P.2d 243.
16. Subsection (a) cited; when state and local taxing officials attempt to proceed without statutory authority or contrary to the statutes, the district court has jurisdiction of the controversy by the provisions hereof. Mobil Oil Corporation v. Medcalf, 207 K. 100, 101, 483 P.2d 1111.
17. Mentioned in connection with 79-2005; suits filed under both statutes can be pending in the same court. Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. v. Herron, 207 K. 400, 403, 485 P.2d 156.
18. All landowners adjacent to boundary line benefit from official survey. Gnadt v. Durr, 208 K. 783, 784, 494 P.2d 1219.
19. In action to obtain relief from collection of ad valorem taxes court held plaintiff could have sought relief under provisions of subsection (a). Northern National Gas Company v. Wilson, 340 F.Supp. 1126, 1129.
20. Statute controlling as to facts private citizen must prove in order to maintain an action. Linher v. Unified School District No. 259, Wichita, Kansas, 344 F.Supp. 1187, 1196.
21. Action to enjoin collection of sewer tax assessments; placing property on tax rolls was unauthorized under facts of case. Nickelson v. Board of County Commissioners, 209 K. 53, 57, 58, 495 P.2d 1015.
22. Mentioned; 79-2005 available to challenge legality of 79-3101 et seq. Meadowlark Hill, Inc. v. Kearns, 211 K. 35, 44, 505 P.2d 1127.
23. Cited as authorizing county taxpayers to bring suit to enjoin county from constructing medical clinic. Seltmann v. Board of County Commissioners, 212 K. 805, 806, 808, 512 P.2d 334.
24. Section basis for prayer from enforcing no fault insurance act (40-3101 et seq.). Manzanares v. Bell, 214 K. 589, 592, 522 P.2d 1291.
25. Action under subsection (a) to enjoin issuance of bonds for constructing hospital under 19-1878; judgment for plaintiff. Thomas County Taxpayers Ass'n v. Finney, 223 K. 434, 573 P.2d 1073.
26. Taxpayers had standing to challenge issuance of general obligation bonds under 19-18,128 in absence of proper certificate of need. Pratt v. Board of Thomas County Comm'rs, 226 K. 333, 337, 338, 597 P.2d 664.
27. Relief under subsection (a) denied; assessments valid and legal. Defenders of the Christian Faith, Inc. v. Sedgwick County Assessor, 227 K. 97, 605 P.2d 122.
28. Provides challenge to special assessments; application of statute to county sewer assessment considered. Dutoit v. Board of Johnson County Comm'rs, 233 K. 995, 999, 1003, 667 P.2d 879 (1983).
29. Authority of court to grant relief in matters of taxes and assessments confined to actions by governing body taken without authority, permeated with fraud or conduct amounting to fraud. Whitehead v. City of Fredonia, 9 K.A.2d 90, 673 P.2d 125; 235 K. 321, 680 P.2d 286 (1984).
30. Charge of illegal tax subject to relief hereunder. Misco Industries, Inc. v. Board of Sedgwick County Comm'rs, 235 K. 958, 966, 685 P.2d 866 (1984).
31. Cited; exclusion by city of urban renewal property from storm drainage benefit district (12-6a01 et seq.) proper. Garvey Elevators, Inc. v. City of Wichita, 238 K. 682, 688, 714 P.2d 956 (1986).
32. Injunctive relief would not preclude future excessive assessments under 19-2704 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. § 1983 violated and attorney fees appropriate under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Allison v. Board of Johnson County Comm'rs, 241 K. 266, 270, 271, 737 P.2d 6 (1987).
33. Taxpayer's standing to contest governmental action must fit within the two broad categories listed herein. Blevins v. Board of Douglas County Comm'rs, 251 K. 374, 382, 834 P.2d 1344 (1992).
34. Injunction sought hereunder proper to prevent future assessment by state of property valuation for tax purposes. First Page, Inc. v. Cunningham, 252 K. 593, 594, 847 P.2d 1238 (1993).
35. The expression "the illegal levy of any tax, charge or assessment" defined. J. Enterprises, Inc. v. Board of Harvey County Comm'rs, 253 K. 552, 857 P.2d 666 (1993).
36. Statutory procedures regarding public utilities right to appeal assessment and valuation of property examined. Colorado Interstate Gas Co. v. Beshears, 18 K.A.2d 814, 818, 860 P.2d 56 (1993).
37. Whether BOTA's tax assessment determination is administrative requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies before suit examined. Boeing Co. v. Oaklawn Improvement Dist., 255 K. 848, 857, 877 P.2d 967 (1994).
38. Whether administrative remedies must be exhausted when plaintiff challenges county commission's authority to adjust property valuations examined. Kansas for Fair Taxation, Inc. v. Miller, 20 K.A.2d 470, 474, 889 P.2d 154 (1995).
39. Challenge to tax assessment dismissed where plaintiffs filed in district court before presenting to BOTA. Dillon Stores v. Board of Sedgwick County Comm'rs, 259 K. 295, 298, 302, 912 P.2d 170 (1996).
40. BOTA's authority is limited to tax matters, has no authority to hear and decide equitable claims. Sage v. Williams, 23 K.A.2d 624, 625, 933 P.2d 775 (1997).
41. Resident ratepayer of rural water district does not have standing to challenge city's water purchase contract. Bodine v. Osage County Rural Water Dist. #7, 263 K. 418, 428, 949 P.2d 1104 (1997).
42. Section inapplicable as plaintiffs do not seek to enjoin levy or collection of tax but to prohibit receipt and distribution of sales tax. Bonner Springs U.S.D. No. 204 v. Blue Valley U.S.D. No. 229, 32 K.A.2d 1104, 95 P.3d 655 (2004).