ÿWPC@" ?# ‚UN %Û 0 cáU <Dw@€4ÀÔ AQã 0 §4 0JÛ 0T% 0^y 0h× 0r? 0|± 0†- 0³ 1uC 0d¸ 0@ D3\ 0D Ó BÛ Æø 0D¾ 0D D/F Bu U >’ B)Ð DCù AM<U*‰_³°fÂO(Bw]¹&b<Qžv~ïvÓm˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX(;1˜$¡¡Ò°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€XcXXXÔ-šBu Z‹$Arrus BT Roman nEopDqrUsîtÓ€uÓ€„§aö"x3|x„*+ ,-Cþÿ<< Cÿÿ(W(3QË$¤¤Ý ƒ1˜!ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€X¤UXXXÔÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò))))'ÿÿdxd(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó dƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó..'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d00007Border 1dd* 1Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial UÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€/ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€3ÔÔ€3ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€3XÔÌÌò òAugustÏ1,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€3ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó ¦Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€/ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€In€1989,€Michael€Hooks€was€the€Assessor€in€Shelby€County.€€At€theÏtime€the€petition€was€filed,€Harold€Sterling€was€the€Assessor.€€Pursuant€toÏT.R.A.P.€19(c),€Rita€Clark€was€substituted€as€a€defendant€when€she€became€theÏAssessor.Ì \Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€/ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€The€adjacent€property€included€an€office€building€and€was€worthÏapproximately€$9€million.€€Oak€Court€Mall€was€therefore€sold€for€approximatelyÏ$60€million.Ì EÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€/ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€The€1980€county„wide€reappraisal€did€not€include€some€commercialÏland€and€rural€acreage.€€These€properties€were€reappraised€in€1982.Ì 8Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€/ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€In€this€opinion,€we€will€refer€to€enclosed€malls€as€ð ðshopping€mallsðð€andÏstrip€malls€as€ð ðshopping€centers.ððÌ SÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€/ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€The€Assessor€has€an€April€deadline€to€correct€an€error€retroactively,Ïbut€in€1989,€the€Assessor€believed€incorrectly€that€the€deadline€was€August.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€/ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€The€decree€was€made€final€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€54.02€by€orderÏentered€July€1,€1997.Ì XÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€/ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€The€Assessor€tried€to€change€the€value€of€the€Mallððs€property€for€1988Ïand€1989,€but€the€increase€was€not€allowed€because€the€change€was€not€timely.Ì GÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€/ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Because€the€Mall€was€constructed€in€1983,€the€Mallððs€assessed€value€inÏ1983€was€equalized€back€to€the€1980€county„wide€reappraisal.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€/ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€¬ÆXXdðdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÞ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSONÌà àà à€€€€______________________________________________ÌÌò òMALL€OF€MEMPHIS€ASSOCIATES,€ó óÌÌà àà àPetitioner„Appellee,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àShelby€Chancery€No.€106118„3ÌÙ€*ÙßR€241A1-j|úë` à. `€€@ÿRßVs.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àC.A.€No.€02A01„9609„CH„00214ÌÌò òTENNESSEE€STATE€BOARD€OFÌEQUALIZATION€AND€RITA€C.ÌCLARK,€Assessor€of€PropertyÌfor€Shelby€County,€ó óÌÌà àà àRespondents„Appellants.Ì____________________________________________________________________________ÌÌà@ àFROM€THE€SHELBY€COUNTY€CHANCERY€COURTÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€D.€J.€ALISSANDRATOS,€CHANCELLORÌÌÌà@ àClare€Orman€Shields,€Harry€J.€Skefos,€Ron€W.€Mcafee,Ìà@ àMichael€A.€Brady;€Martin,€Tate,€Morrow€&€Marston,€P.C.,€of€MemphisÌà@ àFor€AppelleeÌÌà@ àRonald€Lee€Gilman,€Steven€C.€Bramer;Ìà@ àFarris,€Mathews,€Gilman,€Branan€&€Hellen,€P.L.C.€of€MemphisÌà@ àFor€Appellant,€Rita€C.€ClarkÌÌà@ àCharles€W.€Burson,€Attorney€General€and€ReporterÌà@ àChristine€Lapps,€Assistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà@ àFor€Tennessee€State€Board€of€EqualizationÌÌÌÌÌà@ àò òòòREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌó óóóà@ àOpinion€filed:€ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€W.S.ÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€JUDGEÌÌHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€JUDGEó óÌà@ àÌÓÓ›à àThis€appeal€involves€a€constitutional€challenge€by€the€Mall€of€MemphisÏAssociates€(the€Mall)€to€an€increase€in€its€property€value€by€the€Assessor€ofÏProperty€for€Shelby€County,€Tennessee€(the€Assessor).€€The€respondents,ÏTennessee€State€Board€of€Equalization€(the€Board)€and€Rita€C.€Clark,× ƒ5 ××  ×€theÏAssessor,€appeal€the€judgment€of€the€chancery€court€voiding€an€increase€in€theÏproperty€assessment€for€the€petitioner,€the€Mall.€€The€chancery€court€held€thatÏthe€Boardððs€reappraisal€of€the€Mallððs€property€violated€the€Mallððs€FourteenthÍAmendment€rights€of€equal€protection€under€the€United€States€Constitution.à àà àÌà àIn€April€1989,€Oak€Court€Mall€and€some€adjacent€property€wereÏpurchased€for€$69.4€million.× ƒ6 ××  ×€€Following€the€sale,€the€Shelby€County€Board€ofÏEqualization€(SCBOE)€reduced€the€œappraised€value›€of€Oak€Court€Mall€fromÏ$14.4€million€to€$8.5€million.€€In€May€1989,€upon€learning€of€the€reductionÏthrough€an€article€in€òòThe€Commercial€Appealóó,€the€Assessor€appointed€a€task€forceÏto€study€the€manner€in€which€shopping€malls€had€been€valued€during€the€1980Ïcounty„wide€reappraisal,€the€most€recent€reappraisal.× ƒ7 ××  ×€€The€Assessor€concludedÏthat€an€error€existed€in€the€base€rental€rates€and€gross€rent€multipliers€used€toÏappraise€shopping€malls€in€the€1980€county„wide€reappraisal.€€Ìà àThe€Assessor€admitted€that€there€were€more€than€24,000€parcels€ofÏcommercial€and€industrial€property€on€the€tax€rolls€of€Shelby€County€in€1989Ïand€estimated€that€there€were€approximately€200€shopping€malls€and€shoppingÏcenters€in€Shelby€County€in€1989.× ƒ8 ××  ×€€Other€types€of€commercial€and€industrialÍproperty,€œincluding›€shopping€centers,€were€appraised€the€same€way€as€shoppingÏmalls€in€the€1980€county„wide€reappraisal.€€However,€the€Assessor€did€notÏinvestigate€the€possibility€of€similar€errors€in€the€other€types€of€properties.€ÏInitially,€the€Assessor€intended€to€review€and€adjust€the€assessments€of€bothÏshopping€malls€and€shopping€centers,€however,€the€Assessor€was€unable€toÏallocate€staff€time€before€what€the€Assessor€perceived€as€the€deadline.× ƒ9 ××  ×€Ìà àAfter€the€inputs€for€base€rent€were€changed,€the€Assessor€increased€theÏappraised€value€for€twelve€shopping€malls€and€fifteen€anchor€stores€in€ShelbyÏCounty€on€August€31,€1989.€€The€Assessor€increased€the€Mallððs€œappraised€value›Ïfrom€$15,249,100.00€to€$41,217,000.00.€Ìà àThe€Mall€contested€the€actions€of€the€Assessor€before€the€SCBOE,€butÏthe€SCBOE€upheld€the€increased€valuation.€€The€Mall€appealed€to€the€BoardÏpursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€67„5„1412€(1994).€€On€September€24,€1993,€the€Mall€filedÏa€motion€for€summary€judgment€asserting€that€the€Assessor€was€not€statutorilyÏauthorized€to€revalue€the€property€in€a€nonreappraisal€year€and€that€theÏrevaluation€in€this€case€was€a€ð ðspot€reappraisalðð€in€violation€of€Article€II,ÏSection€28€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€and€the€Equal€Protection€Clause€ofÏthe€Fourteenth€Amendment€of€the€United€States€Constitution.€Ìà àThe€Board€denied€the€Mallððs€motion€for€summary€judgment€because€theÏBoard€believed€that€the€Assessor€had€the€statutory€authority€to€adjust€propertyÏvalues€in€nonreappraisal€years,€that€the€Assessor€had€not€violated€theÏrequirements€of€equality€and€uniformity€in€Article€II,€Section€28€of€theÏTennessee€œConstitution,›€and€that€the€Assessor€had€not€violated€the€EqualÏProtection€Clause€of€the€Fourteenth€Amendment€of€the€United€StatesÏConstitution.Ìà àAn€evidentiary€hearing€was€held€by€the€Board€before€an€administrativeÏjudge€on€October€21,€1994.€€The€administrative€judge€found€no€basis€forÏoverturning€the€assessment€change.€€The€Mall€appealed€to€the€BoardððsÏAssessment€Appeals€Commission,€which€affirmed€the€decision€of€theÏadministrative€judge.€€On€June€29,€1995,€the€Appeals€Commission€held€that€theÏreappraisal€did€not€violate€the€Tennessee€Constitutionððs€mandate€of€ð ðequalityÏand€uniformityðð€and€that€there€was€no€proof€of€arbitrary€action€by€the€AssessorÏand€no€proof€of€an€equal€protection€violation€under€the€FourteenthÏAmendment.Ìà àOn€July€31,€1995,€the€Mall€filed€a€petition€in€the€Chancery€Court€ofÏShelby€County€for€review€of€the€Appeals€Commissionððs€decision€pursuant€toÏT.C.A.€ðð€67„5„1511€(1994).€€The€petition€requested€a€stay€of€the€administrativeÍproceedings€and€a€finding€that€the€Assessor€subjected€the€Mall€to€an€unlawfulÏð ðspot€reappraisalðð€of€its€property€in€violation€of€the€Fourteenth€Amendment.€ÏOn€August€30,€1995,€the€Assessor€filed€an€answer€to€the€petition€denying€that€aÏstay€was€necessary€and€that€the€Mall€was€entitled€to€any€relief.€€Ìà àThe€chancery€court€held€hearings€on€January€12,€1996€and€February€21,Ï1996.€€On€March€18,€1996,€the€chancery€court€issued€a€œdecree›€finding€that€theÏAssessor€initially€intended€to€review€and€adjust€the€assessments€of€bothÏshopping€malls€and€shopping€centers€in€Shelby€County,€but€that€the€AssessorÏactually€reviewed€and€adjusted€only€the€assessments€on€shopping€malls€and€theirÏanchor€stores.œ× ƒ: ××  ×›€€The€chancery€court€held€that€the€Assessor€had€the€statutoryÏauthority€under€T.C.A.€ðð€67„5„1603(a)€(1994)€to€adjust€an€assessment€in€aÏnonreappraisal€year€and€stated,€ð ðSuch€adjustments€need€not€be€made€across€anÏentire€constitutional€class,€but€must€be€applied€in€a€non„discriminatoryÏmanner.ðð€€The€chancery€court€voided€the€Mallððs€increased€assessment€on€theÏbasis€that€the€Assessor€had€unlawfully€discriminated€against€the€Mall€inÏviolation€of€the€Mallððs€Fourteenth€Amendment€rights€under€the€United€StatesÏConstitution€because€the€court€could€find€no€legitimate€distinction€betweenÏshopping€malls€and€shopping€centers.Ìà àThe€Assessor€and€the€Board€appeal€the€judgment€of€the€chancery€courtÏand€present€two€issues€for€our€review:€€1)€whether€the€chancery€court€erred€byÏapplying€the€wrong€legal€standard€in€an€equal€protection€claim,€and€2)€whetherÏthe€chancery€court€erred€in€determining€that€there€is€no€substantive€differenceÏbetween€a€shopping€mall€and€a€shopping€center.€€The€Mall,€the€appellee€in€thisÏappeal,€presents€three€issues:€€1)€whether€the€Assessor€and€the€Board€haveÏovercome€the€presumption€of€correctness€given€to€the€findings€by€the€chanceryÏcourt;€2)€whether€the€Assessor€and€the€Board€are€estopped€from€arguing€thatÏthe€chancery€court€erred€in€using€the€wrong€legal€standard;€and€3)€whether€theÏchancery€courtððs€ruling€is€sustainable€on€other€grounds.Ìà àWe€will€first€examine€the€Mallððs€second€issue€as€to€whether€the€AssessorÏand€the€Board€are€estopped€from€arguing€that€the€chancery€court€used€theÏwrong€legal€standard.€€The€Mall€argues€that€the€Assessor€and€the€Board€areÏestopped€because€they€expressly€agreed€with€the€chancellor€as€to€the€controllingÏfactual€question.Ìà àIn€a€colloquy€with€the€partiesðð€œattorneys,›€the€chancellor€asked,€ð ð[If]€theÏCourt€finds€that€there€is€a€substantive€similarity€between€these€two€[shoppingÏmalls€and€shopping€centers],€then€what€is€your€position€with€regard€to€theÏequality€and€uniformity?ðð€€Counsel€for€the€Assessor€responded,€ð ðIf€Your€HonorÍfinds€that€there€is€no€rational€basis€for€the€assessors€to€distinguish€betweenÏshopping€malls€on€one€hand€and€shopping€centers€on€the€other,€then€I€thinkÏthat€you€have€to€find€that€this€was€a€spot€reappraisal.ðð€€Counsel€for€the€BoardÏalso€made€similar€remarks.Ìà àThe€chancery€court€proceeded€to€find€that€there€was€not€a€substantialÏdifference€between€shopping€malls€and€shopping€centers€and,€therefore,€that€itÏwas€a€spot€reappraisal.€€The€Mall€claims€that€T.R.A.P.€36(a)€estops€the€œBoard›Ïand€the€Assessorððs€argument€about€the€wrong€legal€test.€€T.R.A.P.€36(a)€providesÏin€pertinent€part,€ð ðNothing€in€this€rule€shall€be€construed€as€requiring€relief€beÏgranted€to€a€party€responsible€for€an€error€or€who€failed€to€take€whatever€actionÏwas€reasonably€available€to€prevent€or€nullify€the€harmful€effect€of€an€error.ððÌà àThe€Mall€argues€that€the€Board€and€the€Assessor€failed€to€take€any€actionÏto€correct€the€chancellorððs€framing€of€the€issue.€€We€disagree.€€First,€the€BoardÏand€the€Assessor€brought€the€proper€legal€standard€to€the€chancellorððs€attentionÏduring€both€opening€and€closing€remarks.€€Second,€the€chancellor€asked€theÏpartiesðð€counselsðð€position€concerning€ð ðequality€and€uniformity.ðð€€Equality€andÏuniformity€are€requirements€of€Article€II,€Section€28€of€the€TennesseeÏConstitution,€not€the€Equal€Protection€Clause€of€the€Fourteenth€Amendment.€ÏThe€Board€and€the€Assessor€claim€that€the€chancellor€used€the€wrong€legalÍstandard€in€an€equal€protection€claim€under€the€Fourteenth€Amendment,€not€inÏan€equality€claim€under€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€Therefore,€we€mustÏexamine€the€Board€and€the€Assessorððs€first€issue:€€whether€the€chancery€courtÏerred€by€using€the€wrong€legal€standard€in€an€equal€protection€claim.Ìà àThe€Board€and€the€Assessor€argue€that€the€chancellor€erred€in€finding€aÏconstitutional€violation€based€solely€on€his€perception€of€no€substantialÏdifference€between€a€shopping€mall€and€a€shopping€center€because€theÏchancellor€was€required€to€find€intentional€discrimination€before€finding€aÏconstitutional€violation.€€The€rule€is€ð ðwell„establishedðð€that€ð ðmere€errors€ofÏjudgment€do€not€support€a€claim€of€discrimination,€but€that€there€must€beÏsomething€more,€„„something€which,€in€effect,€amounts€to€an€intentionalÏviolation€of€the€essential€principle€of€practical€uniformity.ðð€€òòò òSioux€City€BridgeÏCo.€v.€Dakota€County,€Nebraskaóóó ó,€260€U.S.€441,€447,€43€S.€Ct.€190,€67€L.€Ed.Ï340€(1923).à à€€€€€€€Ìà àIn€another€colloquy€with€the€Assessorððs€attorney,€the€chancellor€addressedÏthe€Assessorððs€issues:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àà àMR.€GILMAN:€€Okay,€Iððll€stop€there,€YourÏHonor.€€Letððs€go€to€point€two€then€that€the€assessorÏhad€only€one€motive.€€It€wasnððt€improper.€€It€was€aÏgood€faith,€nondiscriminatory€intent€to€correct€theÏerror.€.€.€.€Ìà8 àà8 àà àTHE€COURT:€€Let€me€save€you€some€time.€ÍYou€donððt€need€to€argue€that€one€either€because,Ïfrankly,€even€though€they€talk€about,€through€a€blow„up€of€the€òòCommercial€Appealóó€article€and€the€chewingÏout€of€an€employee,€that€in€and€of€itself€doesnððt€showÏbad€motive.Ìà8 àà8 àà àIt€just€shows€that€people€are€upset€andÏwondering€whatððs€going€on.€€And€in€the€absence€ofÏsomething€more€concrete,€more€smoking€gunnish,€soÏto€speak,€the€Court€is€not€going€to€allow€theÏpresumption€of€bad€faith€to€occur€when€theÏpresumption€in€the€law€is€good€faith€absent€someoneÏcarrying€a€substantial€burden€of€proof€to€show€badÏfaith.€€So€Iððm€not€concerned€about€that.ÌÌÓÓà àHowever,€the€chancellor€concluded,€ð ðYes,€I€do€find€that€it€is€aÏdiscrimination€that€violates€the€equal€protection€of€[the]€FourteenthÏAmendment€of€the€United€States€Constitution.ðð€€It€is€implicit€in€his€statementÏthat€the€chancellor€found€intentional€discrimination€with€no€rational€basis€forÏthe€disparate€treatment.€€We€will€presume€that€the€chancellor€used€the€correctÏlegal€standard€from€his€statement€that€ð ðit€is€a€discrimination.ððÌà àWe€perceive€that€the€real€issue€in€this€case€is€the€Mallððs€first€issue:€Ïwhether€the€Assessor€and€the€Board€have€overcome€the€presumption€ofÏcorrectness€given€to€the€findings€by€the€chancery€court.€€Ìà àSince€this€case€was€tried€by€the€court€sitting€without€a€jury,€we€reviewÏthe€case€òòde€novoóó€upon€the€record€with€a€presumption€of€correctness€of€theÏfindings€of€fact€by€the€chancery€court.€€Unless€the€evidence€preponderatesÍagainst€the€findings,€we€must€affirm,€absent€error€of€law.€€T.R.A.P.€13(d).€€Ìà àWhen€determining€the€merits€of€equal€protection€challenges,€TennesseeÏcourts€have€followed€the€analytical€framework€developed€by€the€United€StatesÏSupreme€Court€and€have€utilized€three€standards€of€scrutiny,€depending€uponÏthe€right€asserted.€€òòò òTennessee€Small€Sch.€Sys.€v.€McWherteróóó ó,€851€S.W.2d€139,Ï153€(Tenn.€1993).€€Equal€protection€analysis€requires€strict€scrutiny€of€stateÏaction€only€when€the€state€action€interferes€with€the€exercise€of€a€ð ðfundamentalÏrightðð€(e.g.,€right€to€vote,€right€of€privacy),€or€operates€to€the€peculiarÏdisadvantage€of€a€ð ðsuspect€classðð€(e.g.,€alienage€or€race).€€òòò òState€v.€Testeróóó ó,€879ÏS.W.2d€823,€828€(Tenn.€1994).€€Because€neither€a€fundamental€right€nor€aÏsuspect€class€œis›€present€in€this€case,€the€proper€standard€of€scrutiny€is€theÏð ðrational€basisðð€test.€Ìà àIn€ò òòòDoe€v.€Norrisó óóó,€751€S.W.2d€834€(Tenn.€1988),€the€Tennessee€SupremeÏCourt€discussed€the€ð ðrational€basisðð€test:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àà àThe€concept€of€equal€protection€espoused€byÏthe€federal€and€our€state€constitutions€guarantees€thatÏð ðall€persons€similarly€circumstanced€shall€be€treatedÏalike.ðð€€Conversely,€things€which€are€different€in€factÏor€opinion€are€not€required€by€either€constitution€toÏbe€treated€the€same.€€ð ðThe€initial€discretion€toÏdetermine€what€is€ððdifferentðð€and€what€is€ððthe€sameððÏresides€in€the€legislature€of€the€States,ðð€andÏlegislatures€are€given€considerable€latitude€inÏdetermining€what€groups€are€different€and€whatÍgroups€are€the€same.€€In€most€instances€the€judicialÏinquiry€into€the€legislative€choice€is€limited€toÏwhether€the€classifications€have€a€reasonableÏrelationship€to€a€legitimate€state€interest.ÌÌÓÓ751€S.W.2d€at€841€(citations€omitted).€€Although€the€present€case€does€notÏinvolve€a€legislative€choice,€the€proper€test€is€whether€the€Assessorððs€actionsÏhave€a€reasonable€relationship€to€a€legitimate€state€interest.€€The€determinativeÏissue€is€whether€the€facts€show€some€reasonable€basis€for€the€disparate€stateÏaction.€€òòò òTennessee€Small€Sch.€Sys.óóó ó,€851€S.W.2d€at€153.Ìà àThe€chancery€court€determined€that€the€Assessor€did€not€have€aÏð ðlegitimate€basisðð€for€making€a€distinction€between€shopping€malls€andÏshopping€centers.€€However,€implicit€in€this€ruling€was€a€showing€of€disparateÏstate€action,€which€is€a€necessary€element€of€a€claim€of€violation€of€equalÏprotection€rights.€€òòò òTennessee€Dept.€of€Human€Services€v.€Hintonó óóó,€660€S.W.2dÏ506,€510€(Tenn.€App.€1983).€€The€element€that€the€taxpayer€must€always€proveÏis€that€he€or€she€has€been€a€victim€of€ð ðintentional€and€arbitrary€discriminationÏwhether€occasioned€by€express€terms€of€a€statute€or€by€its€improper€executionÏthrough€duly€constituted€agents.ðð€€òòò òSouthland€Mall,€Inc.€v.€Garneróóó ó,€455€F.2dÏ887,€889€(6th€Cir.€1972)€(quoting€òòò òSunday€Lake€Iron€Co.€v.€Township€ofÏWakefieldóóó ó,€247€U.S.€350,€352,€38€S.€Ct.€495,€62€L.€Ed.€1154€(1918)).Ìà àThe€purpose€of€the€œEqual›€œProtection›€œClause›€of€the€FourteenthÍAmendment€is€to€secure€every€person€within€the€stateððs€jurisdiction€againstÏintentional€and€arbitrary€discrimination.€€òòò òSioux€City€Bridge€Co.óóó ó,€260€U.S.€atÏ445.€€Unless€the€taxpayer€can€show€intentional€and€arbitrary€discrimination,€theÏstate€does€not€have€to€meet€the€ð ðrational€basisðð€test.€€The€burden€ofÏestablishing€intentional€discrimination€rests€upon€the€taxpayer€challenging€theÏofficial€action.€€òòò òSouthland€Mallóóó ó,€455€F.2d€at€889.Ìà àIn€ò òòòSouthland€Mallóóó ó,€the€Sixth€Circuit€discussed€discrimination€in€aÏtaxpayerððs€equal€protection€claim:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àà àWhile€taxpayers€have€normally€prevailed€onlyÏwhen€they€were€able€to€demonstrate€a€systematicÏpattern€of€discrimination,€such€a€systematic€patternÏdoes€not€appear€to€be€an€essential€element€of€theÏclaim.€€Thus€clear€proof€that€a€tax€wasÏdiscriminatorily€aimed€at€a€single€taxpayer€has€beenÏheld€to€support€an€equal€protection€claim.Ìà8 àà8 àà àIt€is€obvious,€however€that€proof€of€intentionalÏdiscrimination€is€likely€to€be€difficult€where€theÏtaxpayer€cannot€show€a€systematic€pattern€ofÏdiscrimination€or€direct€evidence€of€improperÏintention.€€The€court€is€then€asked€to€infer€improperÏmotive€from€isolated€actions€of€an€assessing€board€orÏother€tax€officials.€€Understandably€such€efforts€haveÏrarely€œsucceeded›€in€the€federal€courts,€since€there€is€aÏnatural€reluctance€to€infer€official€misconduct€fromÏambiguous€circumstances€alone.€€ÌÌÓÓò òòòSouthland€Mallóóó ó,€455€F.2d€at€889„90€(citations€omitted).Ìà àIn€this€case,€the€Assessor€claimed€that€œthe€decision€to€reappraise€only€theÍshopping€malls›€was€an€allocation€of€staff€and€resources€problem€and€that€thereÏwas€not€an€improper€motive,€and€the€chancellor€found€that€the€Assessor€did€notÏhave€an€improper€motive.€€We€believe€that€this€finding€is€correct.€€The€AssessorÏwas€acting€to€correct€an€error,€not€to€improperly€discriminate€against€the€Mall.Ìà àThe€Mall€argues€that€the€chancery€court€properly€inferred€that€theÏAssessor€intentionally€discriminated€against€the€Mall€because€of€a€memorandumÏwritten€by€Richard€Ward,€the€Director€of€Valuation€Standards€and€ComputerÏAssisted€Mass€Appraisal€at€the€Assessorððs€office.€€In€a€memorandum€dated€JulyÏ11,€1989,€Ward€noted€to€the€Assessor,€ð ðIt€is€deemed€by€R.€Ward€unwise€toÏproceed€with€this€effort€until€all€malls,€shopping€centers,€and€strip€shopping€canÏbe€handled€together€(for€1990).€€The€distinction€between€ððmall,ðð€ððshoppingÏcenter,ðð€or€any€other€intensive€retail€location€is€at€best€indistinct€and€at€worstÏentirely€arbitrary.ðð€€However,€the€Assessor€presented€a€letter€dated€May€31,Ï1989€from€the€Assessor€to€the€SCBOE€that€€stated,€ð ðAs€the€new€Assessor,€I€amÏdesirous€of€correcting€all€errors€to€assure€equity€in€taxation.€€This€should€not€beÏseen€as€an€attempt€to€penalize€undervalued€properties€or€to€update€appraisals€toÏcurrent€market€value,€but€rather€as€a€correction€to€a€sensible€value€for€the€baseÏyear€of€1980.ððÌà àWe€do€not€believe€that€the€Assessorððs€actions,€even€in€light€of€WardððsÍmemorandum,€show€an€improper€motive€or€intentional€discrimination.€€It€mayÏhave€been€ð ðunwiseðð€for€the€Assessor€to€proceed,€but€the€Assessorððs€actions€wereÏnothing€more€than€a€possible€error€in€judgment.€€Relief€cannot€be€predicatedÏupon€mere€errors€of€judgment€committed€by€tax€officials.€€ò òòòSouthland€Mallóóó ó,€455ÏF.2d€at€889.€€€Ì€€à àWe€also€believe€that€the€Mall€has€not€shown€a€ð ðsystematic€patternðð€ofÏdiscrimination.€€The€only€tax„year€at€issue€is€1990.€€The€Mall€was€not€taxed€outÏof€proportion€with€other€members€of€its€class€in€any€year€before€or€after€1990.× ƒ; ××  ×€ÏIn€1991,€the€Assessor€conducted€a€new€county„wide€reappraisal€that€equalizedÏthe€taxes€on€every€member€of€the€commercial€and€industrial€class.€€€€Ìà àFinally,€the€Mall€has€not€proven€that€the€increased€assessment€was€a€taxÏaimed€at€a€single€taxpayer.€€The€Assessor€increased€the€appraisals€of€elevenÏother€malls€in€addition€to€the€anchor€stores.€€The€Assessor€believed€that€theÏð ðsubclassðð€of€shopping€malls€was€a€proper€place€to€start€the€correction€of€aÏpossible€error€and€was€not€acting€to€single€out€the€Mall.€€Ìà àThe€Mall€claims€that€the€increased€assessment€is€a€ð ðspot€reappraisalððÏbecause€the€Assessor€reappraised€twelve€shopping€malls€and€their€fifteen€anchorÏstores,€but€did€not€reappraise€or€investigate€the€entire€commercial€andÍindustrial€class.€€Basically,€the€Mall€is€arguing€that€the€Assessor€cannotÏconstitutionally€make€any€changes€to€a€member€of€a€class€without€changing€orÏinvestigating€every€member€of€the€class€in€the€same€year.€€We€do€not€believeÏthat€the€constitutional€requirements€of€the€Fourteenth€Amendment€wereÏintended€to€force€the€Assessor,€acting€with€limited€resources€and€staff,€to€soÏtighten€his€or€her€operations.€Ìà àThe€Mall€relies€on€ò òòòAllegheny€Pittsburgh€Coal€Co.€v.€County€Commission€ofÏWebster€County,€West€Virginiaóóó ó,€488€U.S.€336,€109€S.€Ct.€633,€102€L.€Ed.€2dÏ688€(1989).€€In€ò òòòAllegheny€Pittsburghóóó ó,€the€Supreme€Court€stated,€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThe€Webster€County€tax€assessor€valued€petitionersððÏreal€property€on€the€basis€of€its€recent€purchase€price,Ïbut€made€only€minor€modifications€in€the€assessmentsÏof€land€which€had€not€been€recently€sold.€€ThisÏpractice€resulted€in€gross€disparities€in€the€assessedÏvalue€of€generally€comparable€property,€and€we€holdÏthat€it€denied€petitioners€the€equal€protection€of€theÏlaws€guaranteed€to€them€by€the€FourteenthÏAmendment.€ÌÌÓÓ488€U.S.€at€338,€109€S.€Ct.€at€635.€€The€Mall€argues€that€the€Assessorððs€actionÏin€this€case€was€a€conscious€and€arbitrary€decision€that€resulted€in€the€MallÏbeing€assessed€at€a€much€higher€value€than€similarly€situated€property€in€theÏsame€class.€€The€Mall€believes€that€this€case€demands€the€same€result€the€UnitedÏStates€Supreme€Court€reached€in€ò òòòAllegheny€Pittsburghóóó ó.€€We€disagree€becauseÍthe€facts€of€ò òòòAllegheny€Pittsburghó óóó€are€substantially€different€from€the€facts€in€thisÏcase.Ìà àIn€ò òòòAllegheny€Pittsburghóóó ó,€the€Supreme€Court€stated€the€important€factsÏthat€ð ð[p]etitionersðð€property€has€been€assessed€at€roughly€8€to€35€times€moreÏthan€comparable€neighboring€property,€and€these€discrepancies€have€continuedÏfor€more€than€10€years€with€little€change.ðð€€òòò òId.óóó ó€at€344,€109€S.€Ct.€at€638.€€TheÏCourt€went€on€to€conclude,€ð ðThe€relative€undervaluation€of€comparableÏproperty€in€Webster€County€òòover€timeóó€therefore€denies€petitioners€the€equalÏprotection€of€the€law.ðð€€òòò òIdóóó ó.€at€346,€109€S.€Ct.€at€639€(emphasis€added).Ìà àIn€this€case,€the€inequality€suffered€by€the€Mall€occurred€only€during€theÏ1990€tax€year.€€The€Assessor€was€in€the€process€of€correcting€an€error€andÏdelayed€the€investigation€of€the€possibility€of€errors€in€other€properties€by€onlyÏone€year.€€In€ò òòòAllegheny€Pittsburghóóó ó,€the€Supreme€Court€made€a€distinguishingÏstatement€about€the€facts€in€that€case:€€ð ðBut€the€present€action€is€not€anÏexample€of€transitional€delay€in€adjustment€of€assessed€value€resulting€inÏinequalities€in€assessments€of€comparable€property.ðð€€òòò òIdóóó ó.€at€344,€109€S.€Ct.€atÏ638.€€We€believe€that€the€facts€in€the€case€before€us€present€such€an€example€ofÏa€ð ðtransitional€delay.ððÌà àIn€òòò òAllegheny€Pittsburghóóó ó,€the€Supreme€Court€stated,à àÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThe€use€of€a€general€adjustment€as€a€transitionalÏsubstitute€for€an€individual€reappraisal€violates€noÏconstitutional€command.€€As€long€as€generalÏadjustments€are€accurate€enough€over€a€short€periodÏof€time€to€equalize€the€differences€in€proportionÏbetween€the€assessments€of€a€class€of€property€holders,Ïthe€Equal€Protection€Clause€is€satisfied.€€Just€as€thatÏClause€tolerates€occasional€errors€of€state€law€orÏmistakes€in€judgment€when€valuing€property€for€taxÏpurposes,€it€does€not€require€immediate€generalÏadjustment€on€the€basis€of€the€latest€marketÏdevelopments.€€In€each€case,€the€constitutionalÏrequirement€is€the€seasonable€attainment€of€a€roughÏequality€in€tax€treatment€of€similarly€situatedÏproperty€owners.€€ÌÌò òòòÓÓId.óóó ó€at€343,€109€S.€Ct.€at€638€(citations€omitted).Ìà àThe€Equal€Protection€Clause€protects€the€individual€from€state€actionÏthat€selects€him€or€her€out€for€discriminatory€treatment€by€subjecting€him€orÏher€to€taxes€not€imposed€on€others€of€the€same€class.€€òòò òHillsborough€Township€v.ÏCromwellóóó ó,€326€U.S.€620,€623,€66€S.€Ct.€445,€448,€90€L.€Ed.€358€(1946).€€TheÏright€is€the€right€to€equal€treatment.€€òòò òId.óóó ó€€The€taxpayer€cannot€complain€ifÏequality€is€achieved€by€increasing€the€same€taxes€of€other€members€of€the€classÏto€the€level€of€his€or€her€own.€€òòò òId.óóó óÌà àIn€this€case,€the€Assessor€achieved€equality€within€one€year€of€the€MallððsÏincreased€assessment€by€increasing€the€same€taxes€of€other€members€of€theÏcommercial€and€industrial€class€in€the€1991€county„wide€reappraisal.€€In€1989,Íthe€Assessor€was€acting€to€correct€a€past€inequity.€€The€Assessor€was€not€tryingÏto€reappraise€the€Mallððs€property€to€the€1990€fair€market€value.€€We€cannotÏfind€that€the€Mall€was€unfairly€discriminated€against€or€singled€out€in€violationÏof€the€Equal€Protection€Clause€of€the€Fourteenth€Amendment.€€The€evidenceÏpreponderates€against€the€chancery€courtððs€findings€that€the€AssessorÏdiscriminated€against€the€Mall.Ìà àBecause€we€find€that€there€was€no€intentional€discrimination,€the€œstate€isÏnot€required€to€meet€the€rational€basis€test.€€Thus,€the€difference›€between€aÏshopping€mall€and€a€shopping€center€is€irrelevant.€€The€Board€and€the€AssessorððsÏsecond€issue€is€pretermitted.Ìà àThe€Mallððs€third€issue€for€review€is€whether€the€chancery€courtððs€ruling€isÏsustainable€on€other€grounds.€€The€Mall€argues€that€the€1989€increasedÏassessment€violated€Article€II,€Section€28€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution,€whichÏmandates€equality€and€uniformity€in€taxation€throughout€the€state:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThe€ratio€of€assessment€to€value€of€property€in€eachÏclass€or€subclass€shall€be€equal€and€uniformÏthroughout€the€State,€the€value€and€definition€ofÏproperty€in€each€class€or€subclass€to€be€ascertained€inÏsuch€manner€as€the€Legislature€shall€direct.€€EachÏrespective€taxing€authority€shall€apply€the€same€taxÏrate€to€all€property€within€its€jurisdiction.€ÌÌÓÓTenn.€Const.€art.€II,€ðð€28.€€The€Tennessee€Constitution€creates€three€classes€ofÍproperty€and€further€classifies€real€property.€€òòò òSee€idó óóó.€€The€Constitution€states,Ïð ðReal€Property€shall€be€classified€into€four€(4)€subclassifications€and€assessed€asÏfollows€.€.€.€(b)€Industrial€and€Commercial€Property,€to€be€assessed€at€fortyÏ(40%)€percent€of€its€value.ðð€€ò òòòIdóóó ó.Ìà àAll€property€in€the€industrial€and€commercial€subclass€must€be€treatedÏthe€same,€and€the€Mall€argues€that€the€Assessorððs€actions,€both€in€timing€andÏeffect,€violate€the€requirement€of€equality€and€uniformity.€€The€equality€andÏuniformity€requirement€of€Article€II,€Section€28€applies€across€the€classes€andÏsubclasses€created€by€the€Constitution.€€òòò òMarion€County€v.€State€Bd.€ofÏEqualizationó óóó,€710€S.W.2d€521,€523€(Tenn.€App.€1986).Ìà àThe€primary€constitutional€mandates€governing€property€taxation€inÏTennessee€are€œthat€all›€property€shall€be€taxed,€according€to€its€value,€and€thatÏtaxes€shall€be€equal€and€uniform.€€òòò òMetropolitan€Govððt€of€Nashville€v.€HillsboroÏLand€Co.ó óóó,€436€S.W.2d€850,€855€(Tenn.€1968).€€The€Court€continued,€€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àUndoubtedly€these€fundamental€principles€of€taxationÏare€intended€to€apply€to€the€time€at€which€such€taxesÏare€assessed,€so€that€the€property€taxed€shall€be€soÏtaxed€at€this€value€at€the€time€at€which€the€tax€isÏimposed;€and€also€the€equality€and€uniformity€ofÏtaxation€required,€are€equality€and€uniformity€withÏtaxes€on€property€of€like€character€imposed€at€orÏabout€the€same€time.€€ÌÌÓÓò òòòId.óóó ó€(quoting€ò òòòState€v.€Butleróóó ó,€79€Tenn.€410,€413€(1883)).Ìà àWe€agree€with€the€Mall€that€the€timing€of€reappraisals€must€be€equal€andÏuniform.€€However,€it€is€clear€from€the€record€that€the€Assessor€did€notÏòòreappraiseóó€the€Mallððs€property€to€1989€or€1990€fair€market€values.€€Instead,€theÏAssessor€corrected€a€past€error€using€the€fair€market€value€from€the€1980Ïcounty„wide€reappraisal.× ƒ< ××  ×Ìà àThe€Mall€cites€a€decision€by€an€administrative€judge€from€a€hearingÏbefore€the€Board€in€support€of€its€position,€ò òòòIn€re€Barnesóóó ó,€Davidson€CountyÏ(Tenn.€Bd.€of€Equalization€œOct.€16,€1987).›€€The€administrative€judge€found€thatÏthe€assessor€in€that€case€reappraised€the€land€in€question€to€reflect€the€increaseÏin€land€values€since€the€last€county„wide€reappraisal,€and€the€judge€voided€theÏincrease.€€ò òòòIdóóó ó.€at€1„2.€€The€administrative€judge€stated,€ð ðIt€should€be€stressedÏthat€this€case€involves€reappraisal€of€a€small€area€of€the€county€.€.€.€in€order€toÏreflect€the€increase€in€land€values€since€1984.€€This€does€not€mean€that€theÏassessor€cannot€correct€errors€pursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€67„5„509€or€increaseÏappraisals€in€accordance€with€the€periodic€reappraisal€requirements€of€T.C.A.€ððÏ67„5„1601.ðð€€òòò òId.ó óóó€at€2.€€Ìà àWe€believe€that€the€Assessorððs€actions€do€not€violate€the€equality€andÏuniformity€mandate€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€We€may€have€reached€aÍdifferent€result€if€the€Assessor€reappraised€the€Mallððs€value€using€the€1990€fairÏmarket€value.€€However,€the€Assessor€merely€adjusted€the€Mallððs€previousÏassessment€by€correcting€an€error€and€equalized€the€Mall€back€to€œthe›€œ1980›Ïcounty„wide€reappraisal.€€The€Mallððs€assessment€was€calculated€using€the€sameÏtime€and€base€year€as€the€rest€of€the€commercial€and€industrial€property.Ìà àThe€Mall€also€argues€that€the€Assessor€lacked€the€statutory€authority€toÏreappraise€the€Mallððs€property€in€a€nonreappraisal€year.€€The€Mall€claims€thatÏthe€Assessorððs€powers€are€severely€limited€in€nonreappraisal€years.€€€The€MallÏpoints€out€that€the€error€correction€statute,€T.C.A.€ðð€67„5„509€(1994),€does€notÏallow€the€Assessor€to€change€an€assessment€except€those€with€errors€that€do€notÏinvolve€the€discretion€or€judgment€of€the€Assessor.€€T.C.A.€ðð€67„5„509(f)€(1994)Ïprovides,ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àErrors€or€omissions€correctable€under€this€sectionÏinclude€only€obvious€clerical€mistakes,€involving€noÏjudgment€of€or€discretion€by€the€assessor,€apparentÏfrom€the€face€of€the€official€tax€and€assessmentÏrecords,€such€as€the€name€or€address€of€an€owner,€theÏlocation€or€physical€description€of€property,Ïmisplacement€of€a€decimal€point€or€mathematicalÏmiscalculation,€errors€of€classification,€and€duplicateÏassessment.€€Errors€or€omissions€correctableÏhereunder€do€not€include€clerical€mistakes€in€taxÏreports€or€schedules€filed€by€a€taxpayer€with€theÏassessor.€ÌÌÓÓà àWe€agree€with€the€Mall€that€the€Assessor€did€not€have€the€authority€toÍchange€the€assessment€pursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€67„5„509.€€The€error€in€the€formulaÏin€this€case€was€more€than€a€clerical€error€or€a€mathematical€miscalculation.Ìà àThe€Assessor€claims€that€she€is€authorized€to€change€assessmentsÏpursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€67„5„1603(a)(2),€which€provides:€€ð ðThe€local€assessor€ofÏproperty€and€county€boards€of€equalization€may€adjust€individual€assessments€inÏaccordance€with€other€facts€and€information€relevant€to€the€proper€assessmentÏof€the€property.ðð€€T.C.A.€ðð€67„5„1603(a)(2)€(1994).€€We€believe€that€thisÏsection€allows€the€Assessor€to€make€changes€to€individual€assessments€inÏnonreappraisal€years.€€Ìà àT.C.A.€ðð€67„5„1603(a)(3)€(1994)€provides,€ð ðNo€such€changed€assessmentsÏfor€individual€taxpayers€shall€result€in€inequality€or€destroy€the€uniformity€ofÏassessment€intended€to€be€achieved€by€the€reappraisal€program.ðð€€Ìà àWe€believe€that€the€Assessorððs€adjustment€to€the€Mallððs€assessment€doesÏnot€result€in€an€inequity€or€destroy€uniformity€because€the€Assessor€equalizedÏthe€Mallððs€assessment€using€the€1980€county„wide€œreappraisal.›Ìà àAccordingly,€the€order€of€the€chancery€court€is€reversed.€€This€case€isÏremanded€to€the€Board€for€whatever€proceedings€may€be€necessary.€€Costs€ofÏthis€appeal€are€assessed€against€the€appellee.ÌÓÓœà àà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€W.S.ó óÌÌò òCONCUR:ÌÌÌó ó____________________________________Ìò òDAVID€R.€FARMER,€JUDGEó óÌÌò ò____________________________________ÌHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€JUDGEó ó›œÔ€Ô