Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Roy Moore Tax Dispute
Roy Moore Tax Dispute
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
9/1/2015 9:36 PM
31-CV-2015-900698.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
ETOWAH COUNTY, ALABAMA
CASSANDRA JOHNSON, CLERK
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ETOWAH COUNTY, ALABAMA
CIVIL DIVISION
Defendants. )
COMPLAINT
COMES NOW Plaintiff, ROY STEWART MOORE and represents and shows unto the
Court as follows:
1. Plaintiff, Roy Stewart Moore, is over the age over 19 years, is a resident citizen of
the State of Alabama and a property owner in Etowah County, State of Alabama, and whose
County, State of Alabama, serves on the Board of Equalization and whose address is 800 Forrest
Page 1 of 6
DOCUMENT 2
Avenue, Gadsden, Alabama 35901. Mr. Wilson is held out as the Chairman of the Board of
Equalization. There is no actual Secretary of the Board being published and/or disseminated
to the public via correspondence from the Board to the Plaintiff nor via the Etowah County
controlled website featuring the Board of Equalization. Therefore as a good faith attempt to be
in full compliance with 40-3-25 of the Code of Alabama, Chairman Wilson is being hereby
named and noticed in this Complaint. He is intended to be named in that official capacity.
County, State of Alabama, and whose address is 800 Forrest Avenue, Gadsden, Alabama 35901.
She is the Chief Appraiser of Etowah County and is being designated in that official capacity.
singular or plural, Plaintiff thereby intending to designate those persons or entities which were
the official governmental agents, individuals operating in a governmental capacity or any other
agent of Etowah County or the State of Alabama in their official capacity that proximately cause
or contribute to the unjustifiable property tax assessment and per the Code of Alabama should
have been named yet was not known, did not publish their identity via state and country
controlled websites and/or for some other reasons whose identity was not discovered at the time
of the filing of this Complaint, but who will be added or substituted by amendment when
ascertained.
COUNT ONE
Appeal per Alabama Code 40-3-25
5. The Code of Alabama 40-3-25 explicitly vest appellant authority to the Circuit
Court and moreover vest fact finding authority upon a jury of said county as organized and
Page 2 of 6
DOCUMENT 2
charged by said Court. This section gives this authority with regards to dispute between private
citizens and the County government over the appraised value and derivative property tax
therefrom of homes said citizen own and upon which they are obligated to make annual property
tax payments.
6. Since at least 1994 the Plaintiff has been assessed a tax related to the appraised
value of the property and affixtures thereon located at 1185 Tumlin Gap Road, Gallant, Alabama
35972. Such is determined by the County Appraiser and/or his/her officials. These assessments
have increased sporadically for the twenty-one (21) years recorded and provided to Plaintiffs
counsel by the tax assessors office, to include a 284% increase from April of 1994 to April of
2015. Said increase, following the initial appeal, has rested at 246% of the 1994 appraisal with
an experienced rate increase of 82% since the market peak of 2005. Thus, notwithstanding a
publically accepted and scholarly confirmed real estate market bubble during 2005 the
property tax assessed value of the Plaintiff continued to increase. Prior to the slight decrease by
the Board of Equalization via the administrative appeal the increase in assessed value
experienced by the Plaintiff was 110% (with the 2005 assessed value at $148,288 and the 2015
assessed value for taxation being $311,900). Even after the administrative appeal and hearing
the Plaintiff was forced to experience an 82% increase in taxable value during the market
recession (from the 2005 assessed value of $148,288 to the 2015 decision of the Board to adjust
the taxable value down to $270,700). So regardless of the real estate markets decreasing
significantly, and at best in years past remaining stagnant, the Plaintiff was unconstitutionally
and unjustifiable assessed an increased tax burden upon his homestead. Note there have been no
Page 3 of 6
DOCUMENT 2
issued the attached determination by letter as served upon the Plaintiff via the U.S. Mail on or
about 05 August 2015. Said letter determination, notice of which was provided by E.C. Wilson,
Chairman of the Board of Equalization, was entered following an oral hearing on the matters on
or about 28 July 2015. Specifically following a pattern and practice of unjustifiable and
speculative increases to the value of the real property of the Plaintiff an administrative appeal
was taken before the Board of Equalization via a written requested submitted by the Plaintiff.
8. A hearing ensued and the Board of Equalization agreed in principle that the
property tax appraisal increases were unjustified and/or not related to a realized gain in the real
estate market. Said ruling therefore decreased the Plaintiffs property tax obligation from an
aggregate Final Land Value for 2015 of $311,900 down to $270,700, agreeing that $41,200
was unjustified. Yet, this remains as a $122,412 more than the assessed value and tax obligation
from that the same office assessed in 2005 which is when the market was at its peak.
9. The Plaintiff asserts his right to appeal per 40-3-25 as said value remains (i)
unjustifiable inflated when compared to preceding years property appraisals by the same office
[namely the aggregate tax assessment value in 2005 was $148,288], (ii) unjustifiable inflated
when compared to market comparable and, among other factors, (iii) unjustifiable inflated when
10. Said code allows for an appeal to this Court if noticed within thirty (30) days and
allows for factual issues to be resolved by a jury given personal property of value is involved.
Note, the code also says that such appeals shall be preferred cases upon which the Plaintiff
does ask this Court to be mindful and set said matter accordingly.
Page 4 of 6
DOCUMENT 2
11. As a proximate result and consequence of the unjustified and speculative increase
the Plaintiff has been forced to suffer an unlawful seizure and/or ongoing obligation against his
personal property. Said God-given right to private property ownership as acknowledged in the
Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution and the laws of the State of
12. Said infringement is due to be challenged in part given the isolated act is an
injustice and in part because the sequence of events is believed to have become common practice
in Etowah County and perhaps other counties in the state, and thereby unduly burdens tax paying
landowners. Meaning home owners, to include heads of families and other likely hard working
individuals, are experiencing property tax increases on their homes that do not have a realized
proportionate value in the open market. Notwithstanding the macro-perspective, this appeal is
being asserted upon the Plaintiffs individual right per 40-3-25, the United States Constitution
Court to note his Complaint and set this matter for trial upon its docket and provide any other
Page 5 of 6
DOCUMENT 2
OF COUNSEL:
THE GARMON LAW FIRM
255 South 8th Street
Gadsden, Alabama 35901
Telephone: 256-543-3401
Facsimile: 256-546-0908
Email: trent@garmonlawfirm.com
Page 6 of 6