Gerald Muldoon and Vivian Muldoon v. Karen Martin, in her capacity as Pope County Tax Assessor; Pope County; City of Russellville; and Russellville School District
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION III
No. CA 07-1337
GERALD MULDOON and VIVIAN
MULDOON
APPELLANTS
V.
KAREN MARTIN, in her capacity as Pope
County Tax Assessor; POPE COUNTY;
CITY OF RUSSELLVILLE; and
RUSSELLVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT
APPELLEES
Opinion Delivered
AUGUST 27, 2008
APPEAL FROM THE POPE COUNTY
CIRCUIT COURT, [NO. CIV2005-307]
HONORABLE JAMES D. KENNEDY,
JUDGE
REVERSED AND DISMISSED
JOHN B. ROBBINS, Judge
JURISDICTION – TAXATION – COUNTY TAXES – EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION LIES WITH
COUNTY COURTS.– Arkansas
Constitution article 7, section 28 provides that county courts
have exclusive original jurisdiction in all matters relating to county taxes; a circuit court may
hear a suit challenging the legality of county taxes, such as an illegal-exaction suit, but a
claim alleging a flaw in assessment or erroneous collection belongs in county court; here,
appellants alleged that an erroneous assessment occurred, for which they sought a refund;
the circuit court was therefore without jurisdiction and appellants’ claim should have been
filed in county court; because the circuit court lacked jurisdiction; the appellate court also
lacked jurisdiction.
Orvin W. Foster, for appellants.
Newell & Hargraves, by: Jacob M. Hargraves; and William F. Smith, III, City
Attorney, for appellees.
This case involves appellants’ attempt to recover approximately twenty-five years’
worth of property taxes paid on three parcels of land in Pope County. We reverse and dismiss
for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
In the 1970s, Pope County certified three tracts of land as tax-delinquent and forfeited
the property to the State. Appellants purchased the land from the State Land Commissioner
in approximately 1977. They obtained tax deeds and paid taxes on the property through
2002. In 2003, the county notified appellants that it had erroneously certified the land.
Appellants’ tax deeds were canceled, and the county offered to reimburse appellants for taxes
paid between 1999 and 2002. Appellants rejected the offer and brought this action in circuit
court to recover all taxes paid since 1977. The circuit court limited appellants’ recovery to
$82.53 paid in the three years before suit was filed. Appellants bring this appeal.
Arkansas Constitution article 7, section 28 provides that county courts have exclusive
original jurisdiction in all matters relating to county taxes. See also Ark. Code Ann. § 14-141105(b)(1) (Repl. 1998). A circuit court may hear a suit challenging the legality of county
taxes, such as an illegal-exaction suit, but a claim alleging a flaw in assessment or erroneous
collection belongs in county court. See Villines v. Pulaski County Bd. of Educ., 341 Ark. 125,
127-28, 14 S.W.3d 510, 512 (2000); Pockrus v. Bella Vista Village Prop. Owners Ass’n, 316 Ark.
468, 471-72, 872 S.W.2d 416, 417-18 (1994); McIntosh v. S’Western Truck Sales, 304 Ark.
224, 226, 800 S.W.2d 431, 432-33 (1990).
-2-
Appellants do not assert that the taxes they paid were illegal. Rather, they allege that
an erroneous assessment occurred, for which they seek a refund. Therefore, under the above
authorities, the circuit court was without jurisdiction and appellants’ claim should have been
filed in county court. See also Ark. Code Ann. § 26-35-901 (Repl. 1997 & Supp. 2007)
(providing that, upon proof of an erroneous assessment, the county court shall make the
refund order). Even though this jurisdictional issue was not raised below, subject-matter
jurisdiction is always open and may be challenged for the first time on appeal. See Cincinnati
Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 367 Ark. 468, 472, 241 S.W.3d 264, 267 (2006).
[1] Because the circuit court lacked jurisdiction, this court also lacks jurisdiction. See
Koonce v. Mitchell, 341 Ark. 716, 719, 19 S.W.3d 603, 605 (2000). Accordingly, we must
reverse and dismiss the appeal. Id.
Reversed and dismissed.
GRIFFEN and VAUGHT, JJ., agree.
-3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.