{ "id": 3665531, "name": "VIMY RIDGE MUNICIPAL WATER IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 139 of Little Rock and The Bank of New York Trust Company of N.A. v. J.A. RYLES; G.P. Ryles, Guy Maris; Rylwell, LLC; John Ryles; Whitwell, Inc.; and Mark Wilcox, Commissioner of State Lands of Arkansas", "name_abbreviation": "Vimy Ridge Municipal Water Improvement District No. 139 v. Ryles", "decision_date": "2008-05-08", "docket_number": "07-1262", "first_page": "366", "last_page": "372", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "373 Ark. 366" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "284 S.W.3d 70" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "315 Ark. 703", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1910538 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "706" }, { "page": "391-92" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/315/0703-01" ] }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 14-90-801", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "a" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "328 Ark. 194", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 50385 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1997, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/328/0194-01" ] }, { "cite": "353 Ark. 868", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1155488 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2003, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/353/0868-01" ] }, { "cite": "353 Ark. 686", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1155516 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2003, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/353/0686-01" ] }, { "cite": "316 Ark. 195", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1907769 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/316/0195-01" ] }, { "cite": "344 Ark. 711", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 210153 ], "weight": 6, "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "730" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/344/0711-01" ] }, { "cite": "336 Ark. 55", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 51191 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "explaining that an appellant's noncompliance with Ark. R. App. P.-Civ. 3(e) does not render the notice automatically void" }, { "parenthetical": "explaining that an appellant's noncompliance with Ark. R. App. P.-Civ. 3(e) does not render the notice automatically void" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/336/0055-01" ] }, { "cite": "49 Ark. App. 84", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6139435 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1995, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/49/0084-01" ] }, { "cite": "369 Ark. 217", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 4016201 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2007, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/369/0217-01" ] }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 26-36-201", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "a" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 14-86-1204", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "year": 1998, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 14-28-1208", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "year": 1998, "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 537, "char_count": 12032, "ocr_confidence": 0.76, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.667725896263562e-08, "percentile": 0.4919169032634721 }, "sha256": "476f71e21a03d6afda22bf79b955a552ee5c0b788de3bcc327759c8763b29010", "simhash": "1:34891646032cca6c", "word_count": 1982 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:24:36.449526+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "VIMY RIDGE MUNICIPAL WATER IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 139 of Little Rock and The Bank of New York Trust Company of N.A. v. J.A. RYLES; G.P. Ryles, Guy Maris; Rylwell, LLC; John Ryles; Whitwell, Inc.; and Mark Wilcox, Commissioner of State Lands of Arkansas" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Tom Glaze, Justice.\nAppellants Vimy Ridge Municipal Water Improvement District No. 139 and The Bank of New York Trust Company, (collectively, \u201cVimy Ridge\u201d) appeal an order of the Pulaski County Circuit Court that granted summary judgment in favor of appellees J. A. Ryles; Rylwell LLC; John Ryles; Guy Maris; Whitwell Inc.; and Mark Wilcox, Land Commissioner (collectively, \u201cRyles\u201d). We affirm.\nOn October 1, 2004, Vimy Ridge filed a foreclosure action against Ryles and other defendants, claiming that municipal improvement district taxes were delinquent. Ryles argued that Vimy Ridge\u2019s foreclosure action was barred by a three-year statute of limitations under Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 14-28-1208 (Repl. 1998). At a hearing on summary-judgment motions, Ryles argued that the Little Rock ordinance pertaining to the Vimy Ridge water improvement district taxes did not specify when those taxes became delinquent, but under Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 14-86-1204 (Repl. 1998), when a district fails to specify the time of delinquency, the special taxes become delinquent ninety days after those special taxes become \u201cdue and payable.\u201d Vimy Ridge countered that the ordinance adopted the same collection method as used for general taxes under Title 26, which are due and payable from the first business day of March through October 10, and did not become delinquent until October 10, 2001. Because Vimy Ridge filed its foreclosure action on October 1, 2004, it asserted its action was filed nine days within the three-year statute of limitations.\nThe circuit court granted Ryles\u2019s motion for summary judgment, holding that Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 26-36-201 (a) (Supp. 2007) was not applicable to the improvement district\u2019s special taxes at issue. Vimy Ridge appealed the circuit court\u2019s ruling, but this court held that there was no record of any disposition regarding defendants \u201cG.P. Ryles, Guy Maris, John Doe(s) and Jane Doe(s).\u201d We dismissed the appeal without prejudice because there was no final order. Vimy Ridge Mun. Water Imp. Dist. No. 139 v. Ryles, 369 Ark. 217, 253 S.W.3d 436 (2007). The trial court issued a final order on August 15, 2007, and Vimy Ridge now repeats the arguments as to the merits it previously presented in its first appeal.\nAs an initial matter, Ryles contends that this court lacks jurisdiction because Vimy Ridge\u2019s second notice of appeal does not reference the final order issued by the trial court on August 15, 2007. Instead, the notice of appeal mentions the summary judgment order entered May 19, 2006. However, the trial court\u2019s August 15, 2007 order simply reiterated the previous disposition of the motions for summary judgment, and dismissed with prejudice the defendants unaddressed by the previous order. Under these circumstances, Vimy Ridge\u2019s failure to designate the August 15 order in its notice of appeal is not fatal to this appeal. See Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. of Ark., Inc. v. Sudrick, 49 Ark. App. 84, 896 S.W.2d 452 (1995); see also Dugal Logging, Inc. v. Ark. Pulpwood Co., Inc., 336 Ark. 55, 984 S.W.2d 410 (1999) (explaining that an appellant\u2019s noncompliance with Ark. R. App. P.-Civ. 3(e) does not render the notice automatically void).\nTurning to the merits of this case, we do so by reviewing the trial court\u2019s decision in this tax case de novo, but will not disturb the trial court\u2019s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. Barclay v. First Paris Holding Co., 344 Ark. 711, 42 S.W.3d 496 (2001); Pledger v. Troll Book Clubs, Inc., 316 Ark. 195, 871 S.W.2d 389 (1994). This court also reviews issues of statutory construction de novo, because it is for this court to decide what a statute means. City of Maumelle v. Jeffrey Sand Co., 353 Ark. 686, 120 S.W.3d 55 (2003). While this court is not bound by the decision of the trial court, in the absence of a showing that the trial court erred in its interpretation of the law, that interpretation will be accepted as correct on appeal. Barclay, supra.\nThe first rule in considering the meaning and effect of a statute is to construe it just as it reads, giving the words their ordinary and usually accepted meaning in common language. Weiss v. McFadden, 353 Ark. 868, 120 S.W.3d 545 (2003). An additional rule of statutory construction in the area of taxation cases is that when the court reviews matters that involve the levying of taxes, any and all doubts and ambiguities must be resolved in favor of the taxpayer. Barclay, supra. Further, this court has stated that \u201cit is blackletter law for statutory construction to give effect to the specific statute over the general.\u201d Id. at 730, 42 S.W.3d at 508 (citing Board of Trustees for City of Little Rock Police Dept. Pension & Relief Fund v. Stodola, 328 Ark. 194, 942 S.W.2d 255 (1997)).\nThe special tax provision for the Vimy Ridge improvement district is provided for in Little Rock ordinance number 15-513. The relevant section of the ordinance reads as follows:\nthe assessment. . . shall be collected by the County Collector with the first installment of general taxes becoming due in the year 1989 and annually thereafter with the first installment of general taxes until the whole of the local assessment shall be paid.\nThe ordinance does not specify the date the special taxes are delinquent, and \u00a7 14-86-1204 states that when an improvement district fails to specify the date its special taxes become delinquent by ordinance, the delinquency date is ninety days after they first become due and payable.\nVimy Ridge presents two arguments. First, Vimy Ridge asserts that \u00a7 26-36-201 (a) should be applied to the question of when the improvement taxes become delinquent. That section states that general taxes become delinquent on October 10; therefore, Vimy Ridge argues that the special taxes established in the ordinance also became delinquent on October 10. Vimy Ridge\u2019s second argument is that the ordinance does not address what is \u201cdue and payable\u201d and that the only specification for the payment of special taxes is, under Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 14-90-801 (a) (Repl. 1998), annual special tax assessments are first collected as specified by the ordinance, and subsequent annual installments of the special tax \u201cshall be paid\u201d with the first installment of general taxes. Vimy Ridge argues that it follows that \u201cdue and payable\u201d is a period of time, not a single day, and that under the installment plan for general taxes found in \u00a7 26-35-501 (a)(1) (Supp. 2007), that period of time does not end until October 10.\nBoth of Vimy Ridge\u2019s arguments err by attempting to apply provisions for the payment of general taxes found in Title 26 of the Arkansas Code to the special taxes of improvement districts under Title 14. In Quapaw Central Business Improvement District v. Bond-Kinman, Inc., 315 Ark. 703, 706, 870 S.W.2d 390, 391-92 (1994), the court pointed out that municipal improvement districts \u201cconstitute a separate and distinct species of taxing districts as contra-distinguished from counties, municipal corporations and school districts.\u201d\nLooking to provisions for general or ad valorem taxes, \u00a7 26-36-201 (a) reads as follows:\n(a)(1) All taxes levied on real estate and personal property for the county courts of this state ... shall be deemed to be due and payable at the county collector\u2019s office any time from the first business day of March to and including October 10.\n(2) All taxes unpaid after October 10 shall be considered as delinquent.\nSection 26-35-501 (a) allows for these annual general or ad valorem taxes to be paid in quarterly installments, and provides:\n(a)(1) All ad valorem taxes levied on real and personal property by the several county courts of the state when assembled for the purpose of levying taxes. . . shall be due and payable on and from the first business day in March to and including October 10 in the year succeeding the year in which the levy is made.\n(2) (A) Every taxpayer other than a utility or carrier shall have the option to pay the taxes on real property of the taxpayer in installments as follows:\n(i) The first installment of one-fourth of the amount of the taxes shall be payable on and from the third Monday in February to and including the third Monday in April;\n(ii) A second installment of one-fourth (1 /4) or a first installment of one-half if no payment was made before the third Monday in April shall be payable on and from the third Monday in April to and including the third Monday in July; and\n(iii) The third installment of one-half (1/2) shall be payable on and from the third Monday in July to and including October 10.\nClearly, the General Assembly has provided that general taxes may be paid in installments under the schedule provided in \u00a7 26-35-501 (a) that extend until October 10, and that the general taxes do not become \u201cdelinquent\u201d until October 10 under \u00a7 26-36-201(a).\nHowever, these provisions for general taxes under Title 26 would only apply to municipal improvement district taxes if they specifically adopted the installment scheme by ordinance. Section 14-90-801(b) (2) (emphasis added) states that:\nThe municipality may provide in the ordinance that, after payment of the initial installment, the annual assessment of benefits may be paid in quarterly installments along with the quarterly installments of ad valorem taxes at the election of the taxpayer.\nThis section allows a municipality to provide, by ordinance, for the taxpayer in the improvement district to pay their special taxes in installments and on the same schedule as the general or ad valorem taxes.\nThe Little Rock ordinance at issue provides that the water improvement district assessment \u201cshall be collected by the County Collector with the first installment of general taxes becoming due in the year 1989 and annually thereafter with the first installment of general taxes until the whole of the local assessment shall be paid.\u201d By the ordinance\u2019s plain language, the improvement district tax becomes due and payable at the same time as the first installment of the general taxes provided for in \u00a7 26-35-501 (a) \u2014 \u201cthe third Monday in February to and including the third Monday in April.\u201d\nAlthough the Little Rock ordinance did specify that the special taxes were to be collected \u201cannually [ ] with the first installment of general taxes,\u201d the ordinance did not adopt the subsequent quarterly installment provisions for general taxes under Title 26, which improvement districts \u201cmay\u201d adopt by ordinance as provided by \u00a7 14-90-801 (b)(2). Without such adoption, and without specifying the date the special taxes are delinquent, the specific statute dealing with when special improvement taxes become delinquent applies (\u00a7 14-86-1204), and the delinquency date is ninety days after the special taxes are due and payable. Therefore, because the Little Rock ordinance specifies that the special taxes are to be collected annually, \u201cwith the first installment of general taxes,\u201d and \u00a7 26-35-501(a) specifies that the first installment of the general taxes \u201cshall be payable on and from the third Monday in February to and including the third Monday in April,\u201d the three-year statute of limitations began to run ninety days after the third Monday in April, 2001, well before Vimy Ridge filed its foreclosure action on October 1, 2004. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in holding that the statute of limitations barred Vimy Ridge\u2019s foreclosure action for the 2001 delinquent improvement district taxes.\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Tom Glaze, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Riable & Crabtree, by: Mark Riable for appellant Vimy Ridge Municipal Water Improvement District No. 139.", "Friday, Eldredge & Clark, LLP, by: Larry W. Burks, for appellant The Bank of New York Company, N.A.", "Hurley & Whitwell, PLLC, by: Stephen E. Whitwell, for appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "VIMY RIDGE MUNICIPAL WATER IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 139 of Little Rock and The Bank of New York Trust Company of N.A. v. J.A. RYLES; G.P. Ryles, Guy Maris; Rylwell, LLC; John Ryles; Whitwell, Inc.; and Mark Wilcox, Commissioner of State Lands of Arkansas\n07-1262\n284 S.W.3d 70\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered May 8, 2008\nRiable & Crabtree, by: Mark Riable for appellant Vimy Ridge Municipal Water Improvement District No. 139.\nFriday, Eldredge & Clark, LLP, by: Larry W. Burks, for appellant The Bank of New York Company, N.A.\nHurley & Whitwell, PLLC, by: Stephen E. Whitwell, for appellees." }, "file_name": "0366-01", "first_page_order": 392, "last_page_order": 398 }