BROWN v. KUNES, 23 Ariz. App. 367 (1975)

533 P.2d 675

Cecil BROWN and Warenell Brown, husband and wife, Hazel Huckaby and Faye Huckaby, husband and wife, Arthur McCuin and Lorenza McCuin, husband and wife, in their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Melvin Kowal and Eileen B. Kowal, husband and wife, Charles L. Haeussler and Kathleen Haeussler, husband and wife, Richard E. Leggee and Catherine L. Leggee, husband and wife, and Elbert P. Huey and Elaine Huey, husband and wife, in their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Appellants and Cross-Appellees, v. Kenneth KUNES, Maricopa County Assessor, Harold D. Lafferty, Maricopa County Treasurer, Henry Haws, Bob Stark, and B.W. Burns, as members of the Board of Supervisors of Maricopa County, Henry Haws, Bob Stark, and B.W. Burns, as members of the County Board of Equalization, Maricopa County, Arizona, a body politic, Lowell L. Monsees, Howard L. Relfe, and Charles Moody, as members of the Arizona State Board of Property Tax Appeals, Ernest Garfield, Treasurer of the State of Arizona, Arlo Woolery, Director of Department of Property Valuation, State of Arizona, a body politic, Appellees and Cross-Appellants.

No. 1 CA-CIV 2556.Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division One, Department B.
April 17, 1975. Rehearing Denied May 9, 1975. Review Denied June 17, 1975.

Appeal from the Superior Court of Maricopa County Cause Nos. C-261242 and C-261527 (Consolidated); Porter Murry, Judge. Affirmed.

Jerry Levine, Scottsdale, for appellants and cross-appellees, Brown and others.

Harold A. Donegan, Jr., Scottsdale, for appellants and cross-appellees Kowal and others.

Beer, Kalyna Simon by Olgerd W. Kalyna, and Bruce E. Babbitt, Atty. Gen., by James D. Winter, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, for appellees and cross-appellants.

OPINION

HAIRE, Chief Judge, Division 1.

On this appeal the appellant property owners challenge the trial court’s determination that the Maricopa County cyclical revaluation plan being utilized by the appellee-assessor at the time of the trial court litigation was constitutional. The central questions here involved are governed by our decision in Hillock v. Bade, 22 Ariz. App. 46, 523 P.2d 97 (1974) (review granted August 7, 1974), which concerned the Pima County equivalent of the Maricopa County plan. In accordance with that decision, we hold that the trial court’s decision in the cas sub judice must be affirmed.

The appellees have filed a cross-appeal challenging the propriety of the class action status which the trial court allowed. Since we have affirmed the trial court on the merits of the appeal, we will consider the cross-appeal abandoned in accordance with appellees’ wishes as stated at oral argument.

Since we can find no reason to depart from our opinion in Hillock v. Bade, supra, the judgment is affirmed.

JACOBSON, P.J., and EUBANK, J., concur.