|
have not been presented to the county board of equalization. continued tax exemption was timely filed for the year 1987.
<br /> Because the application for tax exemption was not filed
<br /> 14. Jurisdiction: Appeal and Error. When an initial until after August
<br /> appellate court lacks the power, that is,jurisdiction, to
<br /> adjudicate the merits of a claim, a higher appellate court Page 354
<br /> also lacks power to adjudicate the merits of the claim.
<br /> 15, 1987, the only tax year involved here is 1988. See
<br /> Kenneth F. George, of State,Yeagley&George,Keamey, Neb.Rev.Stat. §§ 77-202.01 and 77-202.03(2) and (4)
<br /> and Eugene T. Hackler and Robert C. Londerholm, Sr., of (Reissue 1990). Without timely compliance with §
<br /> Hackler,Londerholm, Hinkle, Corder, Martin &Hackler, 77-202.03,neither a county board of equalization nor a
<br /> Olathe,KS,for appellant. court could consider a tax-exemption claim for the year
<br /> 1989 and subsequent years. As applicable here, when
<br /> Page 353 tax-exempt status is granted a property, such exemption
<br /> shall continue for a period of 4 years. The 4-year period
<br /> John L.Jclkin, of Duncan, Duncan, Jclkin &Walker, begins with years evenly divisible by four. In each
<br /> Alma,for appellees. intervening year occurring between application years, the
<br /> HASTINGS, C.J.,BOSLAUGH, WHITE,CAPORALE, organization or society which filed the granted exemption
<br /> SHANAHAN,FAHRNBRUCH,and LANPHIER,B. application must file an affidavit with the county assessor
<br /> before January I certifying that the ownership and use of
<br /> FAHRNBRUCH,Justice. the exempted property has not changed during the year. §
<br /> 77-202.03. Obviously, Society's property could not be
<br /> In this appeal, the Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan considered for exemption for 1989 and subsequent years
<br /> Society(Society)claims that the district court erred when it because an affidavit of future ownership and use of the
<br /> granted a summary judgment in favor of the Buffalo County property would not comply with§77-202.03.
<br /> Board of Equalization(Board),in which judgment the court
<br /> found that Society is not exempt from paying property taxes STANDARD OF REVIEW
<br /> on 32 independent living units or apartments which are a
<br /> part of St. Luke's Good Samaritan Village, located in In appellate review of a summary judgment, the court
<br /> Kearney, and personal property used in connection views the evidence in a 1500 N.W.2d 5231 light most
<br /> therewith favorable to the party against whom the judgment is granted
<br /> and gives such party the benefit of all reasonable inferences
<br /> Society also claims that the district court for Buffalo deducible from the evidence.Properties Inv. Group v.JBA,
<br /> County erred when it dismissed "Count II" of Society's Inc.,242 Neb.439,495 N.W.2d 624(1993).
<br /> second amended petition because the State Tax
<br /> Commissioner was not named as a defendant.In"Count II" Summary judgment is to be granted only when the
<br /> of its second amended petition,Society claimed,for the first Pleadings, depositions, admissions, stipulations, and
<br /> time on appeal,that it was discriminated against because its affidavits in the record disclose that there is no genuine
<br /> property was not treated the same, i.e., given tax-exempt issue as to any material fact or as to the ultimate inferences
<br /> status, as are other similarly owned and similarly used that may be drawn from those facts and that the moving
<br /> properties in Nebraska, party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.Id.
<br /> This is the second time that the property tax exemption A party moving for summary judgment has the burden to
<br /> status of Society's property has been before this court. In show that no genuine issue of material fact exists and must
<br /> the first case, Ev.Lath. Soc. v.Buffalo Cty. Bd. of Equal., famish sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the moving
<br /> 230 Neb. 135,430 N.W.2d 502(1988)(Ev.Luth. Soc. I), party entitled to judgment as a matter of law if the
<br /> this court held that the primary use of Society's property evidence presented for summary judgment remains
<br /> was for low-cost housing and that Society had failed to uncontroverted. After the moving party has shown facts
<br /> meet its burden of proof to establish by the evidence that its entitling it to a judgment as a matter of law, the opposing
<br /> use of the apartment complex was exclusively for charitable party has the burden to present evidence showing an issue
<br /> purposes.This court reversed the district court's finding that of material fact which
<br /> Society's apartment complex was tax-exempt. The earlier Page 355
<br /> case involved the tax years 1985 and 1986.
<br /> prevents ajudgment as amatter of law for the moving
<br /> Society claims that the tax years involved in the case under party. Howard v. Blue Cross Blue Shield, 242 Neb. 150,
<br /> consideration here are 1987 and subsequent years. Neither 494 N.W.2d 99(1993).
<br /> an application for tax exemption nor an affidavit for
<br />
|