01/23/2018 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

SUMMARY JUDGMENT Judgment.Unfortunately for[Society] the mere allegation of affiliation does not tend to prove or establish [500 Here, there is no genuine issue of material fact. The N.W.2d 524] the"furtherance of the religious mission of uncontroverted facts are the same as they were in Ev.Luth. the Lutheran Church." Soc. 1, with one addition, that Society again formally became an affiliated agency of the American Lutheran The interrogatory and Society's response were received in Church and the Lutheran Church in America,which bodies evidence at the summary judgment hearing. merged into the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America in 1988. As a matter of law, the encouragement of tenants to participate in religious services or to attend other religious In Ev. Luth. Soc. I, 230 Neb. at 141, 430 N.W.2d at services off-premises would not in and of itself constitute 505-06,citing County of Douglas v. OEA Senior Citizens, the rental of the apartments as exclusive for religious Inc., 172 Neb. 696, I11 N.W.2d 719 (1961), we held that purposes or be capable of being deemed sufficient to "[p]roperty which is owned and used primarily for the overcome a county board of equalization's finding that the purpose of furnishing low-rent housing is not entitled to primary purpose of the rentals was to furnish low-rent exemption from taxation as property which is owned and housing,which is not entitled to exemption from taxation as used exclusively for charitable purposes." No additional property owned and used exclusively for religious purposes. facts have been presented in this rase to challenge that The record fails to reflect any evidence that Society's holding. apartments are owned or used primarily or dominantly for religious purposes. In the case under consideration, Society has also alleged that the property is being utilized exclusively for religious Society directs our attention to the supplemental transcript purposes and is therefore exempt from property tax. See containing the"Report on Pretrial Conference,"to which is Neb.Rev.Stat. §77-202(lxc) (Reissue 1990). We have attached a list of witnesses and an outline of their expected interpreted this statute to mean that the primary or dominant testimony along with a list of exhibits to be presented at use of the property,and not an incidental use,is controlling trial.Society did not present this or any other evidence at in determining whether a property is exempt from taxation. the hearing on the Board's motion for summary judgment. See Christian Retirement Homes, Inc. .v. Board of Nonetheless, Society claims that the district court Equalization, 186 Neb. 11,180 N.W.2d 136(1970). erroneously entered summary judgment based solely upon the four exhibits entered into evidence at the hearing. When asked by the Board in an interrogatory to describe Society argues that in doing so,the court shifted the burden any changes in the religious use of its apartments since of proof onto Society,the nonmoving 1986,Society responded: Page 357 Although the plaintiff Society, has always considered its activities to be in furtherance of its religious mission and party. religious purpose since its founding by Lutheran ministers and laymen in 1922, the Society did become formally After the Board presented facts entitling it to judgment as a re-affiliated as an"affiliated" agency of the American matter of law, Society had the burden to present evidence Lutheran Church and the Lutheran Church in America, in showing an issue of material fact which prevents judgment 1986, which bodies later merged into the Evangelical as a matter of law for the Board. Society failed to present Lutheran Church of America in 1988. This formalizes and any evidence at the hearing. The trial court was correct in [243 Neb.356]establishes the use of the subject property as granting summary judgment in favor of the Board. being in direct furtherance of the religious mission of the Lutheran Church (ELCA) acting through this arts of the MOTION TO DISMISS Church.The residents in the apartments are encouraged to participate in the various religious services and activities Although we disagree with the trial court's reasoning that conducted on the premises of the overall Village property, the Tax Commissioner is a necessary party to the action,we and are also assisted in attending other religious services conclude that the district court was correct in granting the and programs upon request. Board's motion to dismiss "Count H" of the second amended petition. As the district judge properly pointed out: When the record indicates that the decision of the trial This statement appears to be the only evidence in support court is correct, although for reasons different from those of a religious purpose for the [Society] offered in the relied upon below, an appellate court will affirm the trial evidence submitted on the Application for Summary court's decision. Wymore v. Wymore, 239 Neb. 940, 479 N.W.2d 778 (1992). As applicable here, the statutes