# Liddell v. Heavner > Supreme Court of Oklahoma · January 29, 2008 · 180 P.3d 1191 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9796985 ## Case - **Full name:** Harold LIDDELL, Plaintiff{/Appellant, v. Denise HEAVNER, Cleveland County Assessor, in Her Official Capacity, and Cleveland County Board of Equalization, Defendants/Appellees, and State of Oklahoma, Intervenor/Appellee - **Court:** Supreme Court of Oklahoma - **Decided:** January 29, 2008 - **Citations:** 180 P.3d 1191; 2008 OK 6; 2008 Okla. LEXIS 9; 2008 WL 239077 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Dissent by Kauger - **Judges:** Winchester, Edmondson, Hargrave, Opala, Watt, Taylor, Colbert, Kauger, Reif - **Cited by:** 46 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9796985 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - rejecting the argument that Okla. Const. art. X, § 8(A)(2) and § 22's grant of legislative power to define assessment classifications justified an unconstitutional statute - rejecting the argument that Okla. Const. art. X, § 8(A)(2) and § 22's grant of legislative power to define assessment classifications justified an unconstitutional statute - discussing federal district court's lack of jurisdiction in particular circumstance ## Opinion text KAUGER, J., with whom REIF, J., joins dissenting to the granting of certiorari: 111 The majority concludes that the provisions of 68 0.8. Supp.2004 § 2817(I) 1 violate the fair cash value standard mandated by art. 10, § 8(A)(2) of the Oklahoma Constitution. I would deny certiorari as improvidently granted. 12 Art. 10, § 8 of the Oklahoma Constitution governs assessment of property for ad valorem taxation, which is at issue here. Section 8 provides for real property valuation as follows: ... 2, Real property shall not be assessed for ad valorem taxation at a value less than eleven percent (11%) nor greater than thirteen and one-half percent (18.5%) of its fair cash value for the highest and best use for which such property was actually used, or was previously classified for use, during the calendar year next preceding the first day of January on which the assessment is made. The transfer of property without a change in its use classification shall not require a reassessment based exclusively *1205 upon the sale value of such property. In connection with the foregoing Legislature shall be empowered to enact laws defining classifications of use for the purpose of applying standard to facilitate uniform assessment procedures in this state. ... T3 The clear language of this provision authorizes a valuation method based on the fair cash value for the highest and best use for which such property was actually used or was previously classified during the previous calendar year. Under the majority's interpretation, the only determination of the fair cash value of property is the fair market value-the value at which a purchaser would be willing to buy the property and a seller were willing to sell the property, subject to its current use. This interpretation completely ignores the second provision of § 8, which allows for an alternative valuation of how the property was previously classified for use. Clearly, county assessor standards for real property valuation are not limited to present use--previous use is also included. Because art. 10, § 8 mandates that the transfer of property without a change in its use classification "shall not" require a reassessment based exclusively on the sale value of property, 68 0.8. Supp.2004 § 2817 2 is completely consistent with the Oklahoma Constitution. The majority misinterprets my writing. I am not saying that the property value should be locked indefinitely. Rather, that it may be valued at its previous use until such time it is re-sold for a new use, not valued at some hypothetical sales figure based on surrounding lots or what some non-existent hypothetical buyer might pay if such person existed. . Title 68 O0.S. Supp.2004 § 2817(I) provides in pertinent part: ... [The fair cash value of a lot in any platted addition or a subdivision in a city, town or county zoned for residential, commercial, industrial or other use shall be deemed to be the total purchase price paid by the developer of the addition or subdivision for the land comprising the plaited addition or subdivision divided by the number of lots contained in the addition or subdivision until the lot with the building or buildings located thereon shall have been conveyed to a bona fide purchaser or shall have been occupied other than as a sales office by the owner thereof, or shall have been leased, whichever event shall first occur. . Title 68 O.S. Supp.2004 § 2817, see note 1, supra. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9796985. Public record. Not legal advice.