ÿWPC* zuI-©ÀV¶9ÙjYw¹†9Fè&D…!V—WV8Ùþ ¡GI¾½›Ã”aA]ªL‡ý­£(÷ÍÑS%(ëªÉ£m »}Ý»rÜ4JÕYÔÅ.ï;å ^wå_#8Ÿ„ÌÁéõî>úHoóÁðŽôºûVjÖøA…Ѫœ—èFäQq¯¯J[æ„p:ÙáË6á×W»»¥ÐY8cGX;ª´$ ±Â—ø‡—2PÈ6G¿­ÎÞ3Ãq‹ò &aâRr1âÛtz“Gƒ¨³ãghð.ól¶ŽÖ Û_#ÀDË­5oj™ŸAPgnš3c¾jt»ìk¬†Üë^ªßž†g1šæÐº¡ûî ÷%{«AÞpBŽÆÆÙL©f:ïä¤ä_™ç¶¨MYžî37ø[‰u¼•> :w²U‡WÚèM_úm2/ê•má³¼ 0 (1‘"ÞéòÔióXæP«Ú<‰ŠW=bÝ2™hç“ bÁØ.~ªsïhO8\Ø›^·X¶îiš¼Í¸;£»ôŽú)Óa¤ÚÈ „hWØWA Æ)YõŸ'ÐÏ&dšzpĹEÓ9 `’úV8M¼¡ÃÒf$iÅ0NÛ)ñácJP§7Zl]7ú‚“(°Åµ¬´Tb %\^ b 0ˆnU*NöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÁÐ ‘ Æ™ Æ_ Æ% Æë &±N× 0DÙÙEb 0ë'''' B 0¤/ D3Ó D- 0K33 AS~ÆÑ 0¤— 0D; A«»]ž“+â (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularyG*ê:i¢Ø+003|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4050ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0 Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 Ý ƒRöŒ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¤ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔEach€property€owner€appears€to€have€filed€a€separate€appeal.€€Apparently,€there€is€no€commonality€ofÐ ° Ðownership€between€them.€€Because€they€had€the€same€counsel€in€this€case,€who€filed€a€joint€petition€for€review€in€the€trialÐ tÄ Ðcourt,€and€because€the€issues€are€the€same€in€both€cases,€we€will,€for€ease€of€reference,€refer€to€their€appeals€in€theÐ 8ˆ Ðsingular.(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó- ù-(|G2öŒ$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€õ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¤ò»»Ô d(|3ÿ$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€õ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3ÿ$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€õ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€õ»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼õ»»»ÔÑ8€GXXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡î´î»¼õÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼õ»îî´ #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓOctober€15,€2001€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XGX»¼õÔÌò òÔ#†¼õ»XXGõ#ÔSUNNYCREST€APARTMENTS,€LTD.,€òòet€al.óó€v.€WILLIAM€J.€GAINES,€ASÐ úJ ÐASSESSOR€OF€PROPERTY€OF€UNICOI€COUNTY,€TENNESSEE,€òòet€alóó.Ô‡XGX»¼õÔó óÐ  ^ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Washington€CountyÐ  ^ Ðà@@øøìàNo.€7129€€€€€€G.€Richard€Johnson,€ChancellorÐ ú J ÐÌFILED€DECEMBER€19,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ Ò"  Ðà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<½` AßÐ ¾  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2001„00885„COA„R3„CVÐ ¹  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<` AßÐ ‘á  Ðó óÓ  ÓÌIn€general€terms,€this€litigation€focuses€on€the€efforts€of€two€real€property€owners€to€challenge,Ð ŒÜ Ðthrough€administrative€channels,€the€results€ð!ð€as€applied€to€their€properties€ð!ð€of€a€county„wideÐ xÈ Ðreappraisal€of€property€in€Ô_ÔUnicoiÔ_Ô€County.€€The€owners€initially€contested€the€values€assigned€to€theirÐ d´ Ðproperties€for€1997.€€While€their€appeal׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€for€1997€was€pending,€they€filed€another€appeal,€this€timeÐ P  Ðwith€respect€to€the€1998€tax€year.€€After€the€values€assigned€by€the€tax€assessor€for€1997€wereÐ <Œ Ðreduced€on€appeal,€the€property€owners€voluntarily€dismissed€their€1998€appeal€and€moved€the€StateÐ (x ÐBoard€of€Equalization€(ð ðthe€State€Boardðð)€to€apply€the€lowered€1997€values€to€1998€and€subsequentÐ d Ðtax€years.€€The€Board€denied€this€request€and€the€property€owners€sought€review€in€the€trial€court.€Ð P ÐThe€defendants€moved€the€court€to€dismiss€the€complaint€for€lack€of€subject€matter€jurisdiction€andÐ ì< Ðfor€failure€to€state€a€claim€upon€which€relief€could€be€granted.€€The€trial€court€granted€the€motion€andÐ Ø( Ðthe€property€owners€appealed.€€We€affirm.Ð Ä ÐÌÓ Óò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€CourtÐ œì ÐAffirmed;€Case€Remandedó óÐ ˆØ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.Ô#†¼õ»àXGÐ#ÔÔ‡XGX.¼õÔóó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòHouston€M.€Goddard,Ð `!°  ÐP.J.,óó€and€òòHerschel€P.€Franks,€J.óó,€joined.Ð L"œ! ÐÌDavid€E.€Cypress,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellants,€Sunnycrest€Apartments€Ltd.€and€DouglasÐ $$t# ÐL.€White€d/b/a€Erwin€Village€Shopping€Center.Ð %` $ ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Michael€E.€Moore,€Solicitor€General;€andÐ è&8"& Ðâ âWinston€B.€Sitton,€Assistant€Attorney€General,€for€the€appellees,€William€J.€Gaines,€as€Assessor€ofÐ Ô'$#'ý ÐProperty€of€Unicoi€County,€Tennessee,€Assessment€Appeals€Commission€of€the€State€of€Tennessee,Ð ° Ðand€Tennessee€State€Board€of€Equalization.Ð œì Ðâ âÓ# ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼õ»XXGl #ÔÔ‡XGX»¼õÔÐ tÄ ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼õ»XXGÚ#ÔÔ‡XGX»¼õÔÓ  Óà@´´)ìàI.ˆÐ L œ ÐÌà  àDuring€the€1997€tax€year,€Sunnycrest€Apartments,€owned€by€Sunnycrest€Apartments,€Ltd.,€Ð $ t Ðand€Erwin€Village€Shopping€Center,€owned€by€Douglas€L.€White,€were€reappraised€pursuant€toÐ  ` ÐT.C.A.€ðð€67„5„1601,€òòet€seqóó.€€The€initial€value€proposed€by€the€county€property€assessor€forÐ ü L  ÐÔ_ÔSunnycrestÔ_Ô€Apartments€was€$1,417,200,€while€the€initial€appraisal€for€Erwin€Village€ShoppingÐ è 8  ÐCenter€was€$2,002,200.€€Sunnycrest€Apartments,€Ltd.,€and€Douglas€L.€White€(hereinafter€collectivelyÐ Ô$  Ðreferred€to€as€ð ðthe€plaintiffsðð)€appealed€their€respective€appraisals€to€the€Unicoi€County€Board€ofÐ À  ÐEqualization€(ð ðCounty€Boardðð)€in€1997.€€Because€the€1997€appeal€was€not€heard€by€the€CountyÐ ¬ü  ÐBoard€until€1998,€the€tax€assessor€conducted€an€annual€assessment€of€both€properties€for€1998Ð ˜è  Ðpursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€67„5„504€and€assigned€a€value€to€the€properties€for€that€year.€€Being€dissatisfiedÐ „Ô  Ðwith€the€1998€assessments,€the€plaintiffs€also€appealed€those€values€to€the€County€Board.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àThe€County€Board€upheld€the€values€determined€by€the€property€assessor€for€1997.€€TheÐ H˜ Ðplaintiffs€appealed€this€decision€to€the€State€Board.€€An€administrative€law€judge€reduced€theÐ 4„ Ðassigned€values€as€follows:€on€Ô_ÔSunnycrestÔ_Ô€to€$1,079,300€and€on€Erwin€Village€to€$1,405,000.€€AtÐ  p Ðthis€hearing,€the€plaintiffs€requested€that€the€administrative€law€judge€replace€the€values€determinedÐ  \ Ðfor€the€1998€tax€year€with€the€values€assigned€by€him€to€1997.€€The€administrative€law€judgeÐ øH Ðdeclined€to€do€so.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àThe€assessor€of€property€for€Ô_ÔUnicoiÔ_Ô€County€appealed€the€administrative€law€judgeððsÐ ¼  Ðreductions€to€the€Assessment€Appeals€Commission€(ð ðthe€Commissionðð),€a€level€of€the€State€Board.€Ð ¨ø ÐThe€Commission€dismissed€the€assessor's€appeal€and€affirmed€the€judgment€of€the€administrativeÐ ”ä Ðlaw€judge.€€At€this€hearing,€the€plaintiffs€requested€that€the€Commission€consolidate€its€decision€withÐ €Ð Ðrespect€to€the€1997€tax€year€with€their€appeal€as€to€1998,€and€substitute€the€new€1997€values€for€1998Ð l¼ Ðand€subsequent€years€until€all€properties€were€once€again€reappraised€in€2002.€€However,€theÐ X ¨ ÐCommission€refused€to€consolidate€the€appeals€because€the€plaintiffsðð€appeal€for€the€1998€tax€yearÐ D!” Ðhad€not€yet€been€heard€by€the€State€Board.Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àOn€June€22,€1999,€the€plaintiffs€asked€the€Commission€to€reconsider€its€decision€not€toÐ $X" Ðconsolidate€the€appeals.€€At€the€same€time,€the€plaintiffs€voluntarily€withdrew€their€appeal€for€taxÐ ô$D # Ðyear€1998,€which€appeal€had€not€yet€been€reviewed€by€the€State€Board.€€On€July€2,€1999,€the€StateÐ à%0!$ ÐBoard€issued€an€initial€decision€and€order€dismissing€the€plaintiffsðð€appeal€with€respect€to€1998€basedÐ Ì&"% Ðon€the€plaintiffsðð€action€in€voluntarily€withdrawing€that€appeal.€€The€State€Board€then€concluded€thatÐ ¸'#& Ðthe€plaintiffs€no€longer€had€any€matters€pending€before€it€concerning€tax€year€1998,€or€anyÐ ¤(ô#' Ðsubsequent€tax€year,€with€which€the€1997€decision€could€be€consolidated.€€Nevertheless,€theÐ )à$( Ðplaintiffs€made€one€final€attempt€to€persuade€the€State€Board€to€review€its€decision€not€to€consolidateÐ |*Ì%) Ðthe€appeals.€€However,€the€State€Board€declined€to€exercise€its€discretion€to€review€the€decision€andÐ h+¸&* Ðaffirmed€the€decision€not€to€consolidate€the€appeals.€€Thereafter,€the€plaintiffs€filed€a€petition€forÐ ° Ðreview€in€the€trial€court.€€They€requested€that€court€to€order€the€State€Board€to€apply€the€1997€valuesÐ œì Ðto€1998€and€subsequent€tax€years,€until€the€next€reappraisal€in€2002.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àThe€Commission€and€the€State€Board,€through€the€Office€of€the€Attorney€General€(hereinafterÐ `° Ðcollectively€referred€to€as€ð ðthe€defendantsðð)€moved€to€dismiss€the€plaintiffsðð€petition€on€dual€groundsÐ L œ Ðð!ð€that€the€trial€court€lacked€subject€matter€jurisdiction€over€the€plaintiffsðð€claims€and€that€the€petitionÐ 8 ˆ Ðfailed€to€state€a€claim€upon€which€relief€could€be€granted,€citing€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€12.02€(1)€and€(6).€Ð $ t ÐThe€court€below€granted€the€defendantsðð€motion,€holding€that,Ð  ` ÐÌà  àà8 ` àbecause€the€Plaintiffs€withdrew,€on€June€22,€1999,€their€appealsÐ è 8  Ðbefore€the€State€Board€of€Equalization€for€tax€year€1998€relating€toÐ Ô$  Ðthe€assessed€value€of€their€properties,€Sunnycrest€Apartments€andÐ À  ÐErwin€Village€Shopping€Center,€the€Plaintiffs€have€no€matter€pendingÐ ¬ü  Ðbefore,€or€decided€by,€the€State€Board€of€Equalization€concerning€taxÐ ˜è  Ðyear€1998,€or€any€subsequent€tax€year,€which€can€be€reviewed€by€thisÐ „Ô  ÐCourt,€and€accordingly,€the€Plaintiffs€fail€to€state€a€claim€for€whichÐ pÀ Ðthis€Court€may€grant€relief.€€In€addition,€this€Court€finds€that,€becauseÐ \¬ Ðthe€Plaintiffs€have€failed€to€appeal€the€valuation€assessments€for€theÐ H˜ Ð1998€tax€year€and€subsequent€tax€years€before€the€County€Board€ofÐ 4„ ÐEqualization€and€the€State€Board€of€Equalization,€the€Plaintiffs€haveÐ  p Ðnot€exhausted€their€administrative€remedies€in€this€case€as€requiredÐ  \ Ðby€the€Uniform€Administrative€Procedures€Act€and€this€Court€lacksÐ øH Ðjurisdiction€over€the€subject€matter€of€the€complaint.Ðä4` x` x ÐÌPlaintiffs€appeal,€arguing€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€dismissing€their€petition€for€review.€€TheyÐ ¼  Ðcontend€that€the€trial€courtððs€dismissal€should€be€set€aside€and€the€case€remanded€for€a€hearing€onÐ ¨ø Ðthe€merits.Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà@••)ìàII.ˆÐ l¼ ÐÌà  àOur€standard€of€review€with€respect€to€findings€of€fact€by€the€trial€court€is€òòde€novoóó€upon€theÐ D!” Ðrecord,€accompanied€by€a€presumption€of€correctness€as€to€the€trial€courtððs€factual€findings,€unlessÐ 0"€  Ðthe€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d);€òòò òUnion€Carbide€Corp.€v.Ð #l! ÐHuddlestonóóó ó,€854€S.W.2d€87,€91€(Tenn.€1993).€€Review€of€questions€of€law€is€òòde€novoóó,€with€no€suchÐ $X" Ðpresumption€of€correctness.€€òòò òCampbell€v.€Florida€Steel€Corp.,óóó ó€919€S.W.2d€26,€35€(Tenn.€1996);Ð ô$D # Ðò òòòRichardson€v.€Tennessee€Assessment€Appeals€Commððnóóó ó,€828€S.W.2d€403,€407€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð à%0!$ Ð1991).Ô#†¼õ»XXG8#ÔÐ Ì&"% ÐÌÐ  Ê($' Ðà@vv(ìàÔ‡XGX»¼õÔIII.ˆÐ ° ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€dismissed€the€plaintiffsðð€petition€because€it€determined€that€it€lacked€subjectÐ ˆØ Ðmatter€jurisdiction€of€the€petition.€€The€concept€of€subject€matter€jurisdiction€relates€to€a€courtððsÐ tÄ Ðauthority€to€hear€and€decide€a€case€brought€before€it.€€òòò òMeighan€v.€U.S.€Sprint€Communications€Co.óóó ó,Ð `° Ð924€S.W.2d€632,€639€(Tenn.€1996);€òòò òCashion€v.€Robertsonóóó ó,€955€S.W.2d€60,€63€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð L œ Ð1997).€€A€court€derives€its€subject€matter€jurisdiction€from€the€state€constitution€and€statutes.€òòò ò€KaneÐ 8 ˆ Ðv.€Kaneóóó ó,€547€S.W.2d€559,€560€(Tenn.€1977).€€A€court€cannot€exercise€jurisdiction€that€has€not€beenÐ $ t Ðconferred€upon€it.€€òòò òDishmon€v.€Shelby€State€Community€Collegeóóó ó,€15€S.W.3d€477,€480€(Tenn.€Ct.Ð  ` ÐApp.€1999)€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€April€10,€2000.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àThe€plaintiffs€contend€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€dismissing€their€petition€for€review,€whichÐ Ô$  Ðdismissal€was€based€on€the€plaintiffsðð€withdrawal€of€their€appeal€of€the€1998€tax€assessments.€€Ô#†¼õ»XXG,#ÔÔ‡XGX»¼õÔTheyÐ À  Ðargue€that€the€trial€court€incorrectly€held€that€the€1998€appeal€was€not€a€part€of€the€1997€appeal.€Ð ¬ü  ÐThey€dispute€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€they€failed€to€exhaust€their€administrative€remedies,Ð ˜è  Ðthereby€depriving€the€trial€court€of€subject€matter€jurisdiction€to€review€their€petition.€€Instead,€theÐ „Ô  Ðplaintiffs€argue€that€the€basis€of€their€appeal€is€that€the€1997€appraisals€should€be€carried€forward€toÐ pÀ Ðeach€year€thereafter€until€the€next€reappraisal,€without€forcing€the€plaintiffs€to€maintain€a€separateÐ \¬ Ðappeal€for€each€tax€year.€€The€plaintiffs€argue€that€forcing€them€to€relitigate€the€tax€valuation€forÐ H˜ Ð1998€and€each€subsequent€year,€without€a€legitimate€change€to€the€subject€properties,€places€themÐ 4„ Ðon€a€unequal€footing€with€all€other€taxpayers€in€Unicoi€County€whose€property€was€reappraised€inÐ  p Ð1997€and€will€remain€at€the€same€valuation€until€the€next€reappraisal€in€2002,€absent€someÐ  \ Ðfundamental€change€in€the€properties€or€mathematical€error.€€In€support€of€this€argument,€theÐ øH Ðplaintiffs€assert€that€the€State€Board€always€carries€forward€an€established€appraisal€to€subsequentÐ ä4 Ðtax€years€until€the€next€appraisal,€absent€a€fundamental€change€in€the€property€or€mathematical€error.€Ð Ð  ÐHowever,€as€the€trial€judge€noted,€the€plaintiffs€have€cited€no€authority€for€this€alleged€ð ðlongstandingÐ ¼  Ðpracticeðð€of€the€State€Board.€Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àThe€defendants€contend€that€the€trial€court€properly€dismissed€the€plaintiffsðð€petition€for€lackÐ €Ð Ðof€subject€matter€jurisdiction.€€The€defendants€assert€that€the€refusal€of€the€trial€court€to€apply€theÐ l¼ Ð1997€values€to€subsequent€tax€years€and€relieve€the€plaintiffs€of€the€necessity€of€maintaining€aÐ X ¨ Ðseparate€appeal€for€tax€year€1998€is€correct€because€the€law€requires€annual€assessments€of€realÐ D!” Ðproperty€in€addition€to€periodic€appraisals.€€The€Tennessee€statutes€set€forth€a€procedure€wherebyÐ 0"€  Ðreal€property€is€òòassessedóó€for€taxes€on€an€annual€basis€and€òòreappraisedóó€on€a€periodic€basis.€€AccordingÐ #l! Ðto€T.C.A.€ðð€67„5„502(a)€(1998),€ð ð[t]he€function€of€assessment€shall€be€to€assess...[Ô_Ôa]llÔ_Ô€property...toÐ $X" Ðthe€person€or€persons€owning€or€claiming€to€own€the€same€on€January€1€for€the€year€for€which€theÐ ô$D # Ðassessment€is€made....ðð€€Furthermore,€T.C.A.€ðð€67„5„504€(1998)€provides€that:Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àà8 ` à(a)€All€assessments€of€real€property...shall€be€made€annually...as€ofÐ ¸'#& ÐJanuary€1€for€the€year€to€which€the€assessment€applies...€Ð¤(ô#'` x` x ÐÌà  àà8 ` à(b)€Not€later€than€May€20€of€each€year,€the€assessment€of€all€propertyÐ |*Ì%) Ðin€the€county€shall€be€made€by€the€assessor€of€property....Ðh+¸&*` x` x Їòòò òóóó óIn€addition€to€annual€assessments,€the€parties€agree€that€Ô_ÔUnicoiÔ_Ô€County€has€adopted€a€five„yearÐ ° Ðappraisal€cycle€as€authorized€by€Ô_ÔT.C.A.Ô_Ô€ðð€67„5„1601(a)(1)€(1998).€€We€find€that€the€trial€court€wasÐ œì Ðcorrect€in€denying€the€plaintiffsðð€request€to€apply€the€1997€values€to€subsequent€tax€years.€€BasedÐ ˆØ Ðupon€the€aforementioned€statutes,€real€property€is€subject€to€annual€assessments,€and€there€is€noÐ tÄ Ðauthority€for€the€plaintiffsðð€contention€that€real€property€is€assigned€a€single€tax€value€for€each€yearÐ `° Ðbetween€reappraisals.Ð L œ ÐÌÔ#†¼õ»XXG1#ÔÔ‡XGX»¼õÔà  àThe€defendants€also€argue€that,€because€the€plaintiffs€withdrew€their€appeal€of€the€taxÐ $ t Ðassessments€for€1998€and€have€not€filed€an€appeal€of€the€assessments€for€any€other€tax€year,€the€trialÐ  ` Ðcourt€lacked€subject€matter€jurisdiction€to€review€the€plaintiffsðð€petition€because€there€is€no€finalÐ ü L  Ðdecision€by€the€State€Board€that€is€subject€to€review€by€the€trial€court.€€In€support€of€this€argument,Ð è 8  Ðthe€defendants€rely€upon€the€statutorily„mandated€administrative€procedures€for€raising€a€disputeÐ Ô$  Ðregarding€a€tax€assessment.€Ô#†¼õ»XXG¤@#ÔÔ‡XGX»¼õÔÐ À  ÐÌà  à€The€legislature€has€set€forth€a€series€of€administrative€procedures€for€contesting€taxÐ ˜è  Ðassessments.€€The€first€step€in€the€process€is€to€appeal€the€assessment€by€the€tax€assessor€to€theÐ „Ô  ÐCounty€Board.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€67„5„1407€(a)(1)€(1998).€€If€the€taxpayer€is€dissatisfied€with€theÐ pÀ Ðdecision€of€the€County€Board,€it€can€appeal€that€decision€to€the€State€Board.€€òòSee€óóT.C.A.€ðð€67„5„1412Ð \¬ Ð(a)(1)€(1998).€€Lastly,€a€final€decision€by€the€State€Board€is€subject€to€judicial€review€ð ðin€theÐ H˜ Ðchancery€court...where€the€disputed€assessment€was€made€or€in€the€chancery€court€of€Davidson,Ð 4„ ÐWashington,€Knox,€Hamilton,€Madison€or€Shelby€County,€whichever€county€is€closest€in€mileageÐ  p Ðto€the€situs€of€such€property....ððòòò ò€óóó óT.C.A.€ðð€67„5„1511€(b)€(1998).Ô#†¼õ»XXGdC#ÔÔ‡XGX»¼õԀР \ ÐÔ#†¼õ»XXGYG#ÔÔ‡XGX»¼õÔÌà  àIn€this€case,€the€plaintiffs€initially€challenged€the€tax€assessments€of€both€properties€for€taxÐ ä4 Ðyear€1997.€€However,€before€the€plaintiffsðð€appeal€regarding€1997€was€heard€by€the€State€Board,€theÐ Ð  Ðassessor€rendered€his€annual€assessment€of€the€properties€for€the€1998€tax€year.€€As€a€result,€theÐ ¼  Ðplaintiffs€appealed€the€1998€tax€assessment.€€However,€the€plaintiffs€did€not€exhaust€theirÐ ¨ø Ðadministrative€remedies€with€regard€to€the€1998€tax€year.€€Instead€of€awaiting€the€decision€of€theÐ ”ä ÐState€Board€and€then€seeking€review€of€that€decision€in€the€trial€court,€the€plaintiffs€voluntarilyÐ €Ð Ðwithdrew€their€appeal€as€to€the€1998€tax€year.€€Then€the€plaintiffs€filed€a€petition€for€review€in€theÐ l¼ Ðtrial€court,€asking€the€court€to€order€the€State€Board€to€apply€the€1997€values€directly€to€the€1998€taxÐ X ¨ Ðyear€and€to€subsequent€tax€years.€T.C.A.€ðð€67„5„1511€confers€subject€matter€jurisdiction€on€aÐ D!” Ðchancery€court€to€review€only€final€decisions€of€the€State€Board.€€Because€the€plaintiffs€voluntarilyÐ 0"€  Ðwithdrew€their€appeal€of€the€1998€tax€year€before€the€State€Board€was€able€to€render€a€decision,€thereÐ #l! Ðis€no€final€judgment€of€the€State€Board€with€regard€to€tax€year€1998€that€is€subject€to€judicial€reviewÐ $X" Ðby€the€trial€court.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€67„5„1511.Ô#†¼õ»XXG±G#ÔÔ‡XGX»¼õÔ€€Moreover,€the€plaintiffs€have€no€action€pending€before,Ð ô$D # Ðor€decided€by€the€State€Board,€concerning€a€subsequent€tax€year€with€which€the€1997€decision€couldÐ à%0!$ Ðbe€consolidated.òòóóÐ Ì&"% ÐÌÔ#†¼õ»XXGÙM#ÔÔ‡XGX»¼õÔà  àWe€find€that€the€plaintiffs€were€trying€to€bring€their€1998€appeal€directly€to€the€trial€courtÐ ¤(ô#' Ðwithout€first€exhausting€their€administrative€remedies€with€the€State€Board.€€The€general€rule€is€thatÐ )à$( Ðð ðwhere€an€administrative€remedy€is€provided€by€statute,€relief€must€be€sought€by€exhausting€thisÐ |*Ì%) Ðremedy€before€the€courts€will€act.ðð€€òòò òReeves€v.€Olsonóóó ó,€691€S.W.2d€527,€529€(Tenn.€1985)€(quotingÐ h+¸&* Ðòòò òTennessee€Enamel€Mfg.€Co.€v.€Hakeóóó ó,€183€Tenn.€615,€620,€194€S.W.2d€468,€470€(1946)).€€BecauseÐ ° Ðthe€State€Board€was€denied€an€opportunity€to€make€a€decision€regarding€the€1998€tax€assessments,Ð œì Ðthe€plaintiffs,€by€their€own€action,€removed€any€grounds€for€review€by€the€trial€court.€€We€find€thatÐ ˆØ Ðthe€court€below€correctly€concluded€that€it€lacked€subject€matter€jurisdiction€over€the€plaintiffsððÐ tÄ Ðcomplaint.Ð `° ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€also€granted€the€defendantsðð€motion€to€dismiss€because€it€found€that€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðplaintiffs€failed€to€state€a€claim€upon€which€relief€could€be€granted.€€€A€motion€to€dismiss€for€failureÐ $ t Ðto€state€a€claim€upon€which€relief€can€be€granted€examines€the€sufficiency€of€the€complaint.€€òòò òSmithÐ  ` Ðv.€First€Union€Nat.€Bank€of€Tennesseeóóó ó,€958€S.W.2d€113,€115€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1997).€€ð ðThe€basisÐ ü L  Ðfor€the€motion€is€that€the€allegations€contained€in€the€complaint,€considered€alone€and€taken€as€true,Ð è 8  Ðare€insufficient€to€state€a€claim€as€a€matter€of€law.ðð€€òòò òId.óóó ó€at€115.€€In€resolving€the€issues€on€appeal,€weÐ Ô$  Ðare€required€to€construe€the€complaint€liberally€in€favor€of€the€plaintiff€and€take€the€factualÐ À  Ðallegations€of€the€complaint€as€true.€€òòò òCook€v.€Spinnakerððs€of€Rivergateóóó ó,€878€S.W.2d€934,€938€(Tenn.Ð ¬ü  Ð1994).€€The€complaint€should€be€dismissed€for€failure€to€state€a€claim€if€it€appears€that€the€plaintiffÐ ˜è  Ðcannot€prove€any€set€of€facts€in€support€of€his€or€her€claim€entitling€him€or€her€to€relief.€€òòò òFuerst€v.Ð „Ô  ÐMethodist€Hosp.€Southóóó ó,€566€S.W.2d€847,€848€(Tenn.€1978).€€Ô#†¼õ»XXG O#ÔÔ‡XGX»¼õÔÐ pÀ ÐÌà  àIn€this€case,€we€find€that€the€plaintiffs€sought€relief€through€means€not€provided€by€law,€andÐ H˜ Ðthus,€the€petition€states€a€claim€for€relief€which€cannot€be€granted.€€€The€plaintiffs€requested€that€theÐ 4„ Ðtrial€court€assume€jurisdiction€and€direct€the€State€Board€to€apply€the€1997€values€to€tax€year€1998Ð  p Ðand€subsequent€tax€years.€€However,€as€a€result€of€the€plaintiffsðð€voluntary€dismissal€of€their€1998Ð  \ Ðappeal,€the€trial€court€could€not€assume€jurisdiction€because€the€plaintiffs€were€not€appealing€a€finalÐ øH Ðdecision€of€the€State€Board.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€67„5„1511.€€The€plaintiffs€were€asking€the€trial€court€toÐ ä4 Ðdo€something€that€it€had€no€authority€to€do.€€Therefore,€we€find€that€the€trial€court€properly€held€thatÐ Ð  Ðthe€plaintiffs€failed€to€state€a€claim€upon€which€relief€could€be€granted.Ð ¼  ÐÌà@ll)ìàIV.ˆÐ ”ä ÐÌà  àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€This€case€is€remanded€for€collection€of€costsÐ l¼ Ðassessed€in€the€trial€court,€pursuant€to€applicable€law.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€assessed€to€the€appellants,Ð X ¨ ÐSunnycrest€Apartments,€Ltd.,€and€Douglas€L.€White.€Ð D!” ÐÔ#†¼õ»XXG~X#ÔÔ‡XGX»¼õÔÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à_______________________________Ð à%0!$ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àCHARLES€D.€SUSANO,€JR.,€JUDGEÔ#†¼õ»XXG^#Ô