School district brought action against county board of supervisors for declaratory relief on claim that board’s decision to reject $3,350,000 of district’s requested tax effort, which was an amount that the board calculated to represented ad valorem taxes on properties previously subject to an expired fee-in-lieu of ad valorem tax agreement (FILOT), was based on an improper determination that the requested effort violated state’s statutory limit on increases in school property taxes.
The Chancery Court entered summary judgment for district, finding that the statutory limit did not apply to the properties for the fiscal year at issue. Board appealed.
The Supreme Court held that:
- Pursuant to statute governing appeals from a judgment or decision by municipal authorities, which required the filing of a timely notice of appeal in the circuit court, the chancery court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction;
- Board’s representation in its meeting minutes that it would file its own declaratory-judgment action did not preclude the statute governing appeals from a judgment or decision by municipal authorities from being district’s exclusive remedy; and
- The defense of lack of subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived.
Chancery court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to enter declaratory judgment in school district’s action against county board of supervisors for declaratory relief on claim that board’s decision to reject $3,350,000 of district’s requested tax effort, which was an amount that the board calculated to represented ad valorem taxes on properties previously subject to an expired fee-in-lieu of ad valorem tax agreement (FILOT), was based on an improper determination that the requested effort violated state’s statutory limit on increases in school property taxes; district did not file a notice of appeal in the circuit court as required by statute governing appeals from a judgment or decision by municipal authorities, which provided for district’s exclusive remedy.
Representation by county board of supervisors, as stated in meeting minutes, that it would file a declaratory action to determine whether it was lawful for it to reject $3,350,000 of school district’s requested tax effort, which was an amount that represented ad valorem taxes on properties previously subject to an expired fee-in-lieu of ad valorem tax agreement (FILOT) and which was an amount that allegedly violated statutory limit on increases in school property taxes, did not preclude statute governing appeals from a judgment or decision by municipal authorities from being school district’s exclusive remedy for board’s rejection of the tax effort, and thus school district, in order to challenge the board’s decision, had to follow the statutory requirement of timely filing a notice of appeal in the circuit court.