Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Sanford v. Walther

Supreme Court of Arkansas

June 25, 2015

GARY SANFORD; LINDA YEAGER; WAYNE LILLEY; LILLEY PAINT CO., INC., AN ARKANSAS CORPORATION; AND AIRMOTIVE, INC., AN ARKANSAS CORPORATION, APPELLANTS
v.
LARRY WALTHER, DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION, APPELLEE

Page 140

APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT. NO. 60CV-10-3462. HONORABLE WENDELL GRIFFEN, JUDGE.

Deininger & Wingfield, P.A., by: Neil Deininger and Reba M. Wingfield; Hatfield & Sayre, by: Eugene G. Sayre; and Stephen L. Curry, for appellants.

Joel DiPippa, Attorney Supervisor, Revenue Legal Counsel, for appellees.

JIM HANNAH, Chief Justice. HART, J., concurs.

OPINION

Page 141

JIM HANNAH, Chief Justice

Appellants, Gary Sanford, Linda Yeager, Wayne Lilley, Lilley Paint Co., Inc., and Airmotive, Inc., appeal an order of the Pulaski County Circuit Court dismissing their complaint brought against Richard

Page 142

Weiss, in his official capacity as Director, Arkansas Department of Finance & Administration (" DF& A" ),[1] in which they alleged illegal-exaction claims and due-process violations. We affirm the circuit court's order.

On November 1, 2013, appellants filed a " Second Amended & Restated Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief Against Illegal Exactions Imposed by" DF& A. Appellants alleged that DF& A's method of imposing, levying, and collecting interest on certain state tax-delinquencies is unlawful, unconstitutional, and usurious and constitutes an illegal exaction in violation of article 16, section 13, of the Arkansas Constitution.[2] DF& A filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (6), alleging that appellants had failed to plead facts necessary to establish subject-matter jurisdiction and that appellants had failed to plead facts on which relief may be granted. The circuit court set forth the facts as follows that must be taken as true in evaluating appellants' second amended complaint:

(a) Plaintiffs are taxpayers within the meaning of Arkansas law;
(b) Plaintiffs are persons who are or have been indebted to the State of Arkansas for delinquent tax debts and against whom interest on such state tax debts has ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.