ÿWPCj$ …4Vj 0 {yôw@ü# <UHG 0¿ 0DN 0J’ UHÜ $ 0T, 0^€ 0hÞ 0rF %¸ 0|¾ 0†: UFÀ B 0# 1u³ 0d( D3Œ 0@¿U6ÿB)5DC^ AM¡U*î<†TîÚ3È&ûQ!rv~tvÓò AOÅ"Æ# 0DÚ# D/$ BM$DÒ 3|xN(S*$¡¡Ó  ÓÔ€X-XXXÔÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÑ  Ñ ;<=?D@ABDCDÓ€N˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 <à09Z 0Courier (W1) Regular(o(3‹Â$¤¤Ý ƒ*!ÝÓ  ÓÔ€Xï‰XXXÔÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÑ  ÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô<à09Z 0Courier (W1) Regular2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔX2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô<4šÛ 9Z ‹.Courier New Regular d2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d////7Border 1dd€-0Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial 2Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€.ÔÓ  ÓÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€2ÔÔ€2ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€2XÔÌÌMarchÏ17,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏW.ÏCrowsonÌAppellateÏCourtÏClerkÔ  Ôó ó |Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€.ÔÓ  ÓÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝAs€is€discussed€in€more€detail€òòinfraóó,€Thomasððs€appeal€to€theÏstate€board€of€equalization€was€dismissed€because€she€did€not€payÏthe€undisputed€portion€of€her€property€tax€when€due.Ì äÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€.ÔÓ  ÓÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThis€is€the€value€of€the€property€that€was€ascertained€by€theÏassessor€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€67„5„601€and€„602.€€SuchÏvaluations€are€determined€from€ð ðevidence€of€[the€propertyððs]Ïsound,€intrinsic€and€immediate€value,€for€purposes€of€sale€betweenÏa€willing€seller€and€a€willing€buyer.€.€.€.ðð€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€67„5„601.€€As€Thomasððs€property€is€residential,€it€is€then€assessedÏat€25%€of€its€value.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€67„5„801(a)(3).€€ThisÏassessed€value€is€then€used€to€determine€the€amount€of€theÏproperty€tax€due.Ì )Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€.ÔÓ  ÓÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThis€is€the€correct€title€of€the€county€board€of€equalizationÏfor€Metropolitan€Nashville„Davidson€County.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€.ÔÓ  ÓÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€substance€of€this€ð ðmisleading€informationðð€is€notÏexpressed€clearly€in€the€record.Ì GÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€.ÔÓ  ÓÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝWhen€not€mandated€by€statute,€exhaustion€is€a€matter€ofÏjudicial€discretion.€€òòReeves€v.€Olsenóó,€691€S.W.2d€527,€530€(Tenn.Ï1985).€Ì øÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€.ÔÓ  ÓÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝSubdivision€(b)(1)(C)€does€not€apply€in€Davidson€County.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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 Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€.ÔÓ  ÓÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÑ Œ ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€ ï‰ XXdÈdÈ7Ñ›Þ ÞÌÌÌà@ àœIN›€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌÌBETTY€CORLEW€THOMAS,€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)€€€FOR€PUBLICATIONÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€à àà àà àà àà à€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à€)€€€FILED:€œMARCH€17,›€1997Ìà àPetitioner„Appellant,à àà à€)€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à€)€€€DAVIDSON€COUNTYÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà àà à€)€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à€)€€€HON.€C.€ALLEN€HIGH,ÌSTATE€BOARD€OF€EQUALIZATION;à àà à€)à à€€€CHANCELLORÌKELSEY€JONES,€Executive€Secretaryà à€)ÌState€Board€of€Equalization;à àà à€)€€€NO.€œ01„S„01„9601„CH„00002›ÌHELEN€JAMES,€Administrative€Law€€€€€)̜ـ€ÙßR€130A1-j|xÿŠ` ‚- `€€@ÿRß›Judge,€State€Board€of€Equalization;€)ÌMETROPOLITAN€GOVERNMENT€OFà àà à€)ÌNASHVILLE€AND€DAVIDSON€COUNTY;à à€)ÌPHIL€BREDESEN,€Mayor,€Metropolitanà à€)ÌGovernment€of€Nashville€and€€à àà à€)ÌDavidson€County;à àà àà àà à€)ÌMETROPOLITAN€BOARD€OF€EQUALIZATIONà à€)ÌFOR€NASHVILLE€AND€DAVIDSON€COUNTY;à à€)ÌJO€ANN€NORTH,€Assessor€of€Property,€)ÌMetropolitan€Government€of€€€€€€€€€€)ÌNashville€and€Davidson€County;€andà à€)ÌCHARLIE€CARDWELL,€Trustee,à àà à€)ÌMetropolitan€Government€ofà àà à€)ÌNashville€and€Davidson€County,à à€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àà à€)Ì€€€€€Respondents„Appellees.€€€€€€€à à€)ÌÌÌÌòòFor€Appellant:à àà àà àà àà àFor€Appellees:óóÌÌJOSEPH€H.€JOHNSTON€€€€€à àà àà àœJOHN€KNOX€WALKUP›ÌNashville,€TNà àà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCHRISTINE€LAPPSÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TNÌœÌÌ›à àà àà àœ€›ÌÌà@ àòòOPINIONÌœÌÌÌÌ›ÌÌóóREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDà àà àà àà àà àà àBIRCH,€œC.J.›ÇÓÓÑ7€ ï‰ XXdÈ XXdÈ7ÑÓ` °‚X˜XÓà àThis€cause€chronicles€the€efforts€of€Betty€CorlewÏThomas,€the€appellant,€to€challenge€the€valuation€placed€on€herÏhome€by€the€Tax€Assessor€for€Metropolitan€Nashville„DavidsonÏCounty.€€In€the€initial€stages,€Thomas€proceeded€without€a€œlawyer;›Ïit€was€during€this€period€of€self„representation€that€theÏadministrative€œjudge,›€employed€by€the€state€board€of€equalizationÏ(ð ðstate€œboardðð),›€dismissed€her€appeal.× ƒ4 ××  ×€€Thomas€challenged€thisÏaction,€but€in€the€process,€she€skipped€two€of€the€administrativeÏsteps€that€she€could€have€taken€and€sought€judicial€review€in€theÏChancery€Court.€€Finding€that€Thomas€had€failed€to€exhaust€herÏadministrative€remedies,€the€trial€court€dismissed€her€appeal.€ÏThe€Court€of€Appeals€affirmed€the€trial€courtððs€judgment.ÌÌà àBefore€this€Court,€Thomas€contends€first€that€she€wasÏnot€required€by€applicable€statutes€to€exhaust€her€administrativeÏremedies€in€order€to€obtain€judicial€review€of€the€dismissal€ofÏher€appeal.€€Second,€and€alternatively,€she€insists€that€even€ifÏexhaustion€œwere›€ordinarily€required,€exhaustion€was€excused€in€herÏcase€because€the€pertinent€issue€was€primarily€one€of€law.€Third,ÍThomas€asserts€that€she€was€deprived€of€her€due€process€rightsÏbecause€the€state€boardððs€printed€notice€failed€to€inform€her€thatÏthe€consequence€of€non„payment€of€the€undisputed€portion€of€theÏproperty€tax€by€the€due€date€would€be€dismissal€of€her€appeal.̛̜à àBecause€the€statute€does€not€require€Thomas€to€exhaustÏher€administrative€remedies€and€because€the€state€board€providedÏher€inconsistent€and€misleading€information€regarding€certainœÏaspects›€of€the€administrative€appeal€process,€we€reverse€theÏjudgment€of€the€Court€of€Appeals€and€remand€the€cause€to€the€stateÏboard€for€œa›€hearing€to€determine€the€proper€valuation€of€herÏproperty€for€the€year€1993.ÌÌà@ àIÌÌà àThe€procedure€prescribed€for€the€appeal€of€the€propertyÏtax€valuation€of€oneððs€real€estate€by€the€assessor€is€a€tediousÏone.€€It€is€better€understood€if€we€enumerate€the€steps€in€theÏprocess€first€and€then€detail€the€events€that€occurred€in€thisÏcase.ÌÌà àBy€statute,€an€aggrieved€taxpayer€may€appeal€theÏassessorððs€valuation€of€property€to€the€county€board€ofÏequalization.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€67„5„1402.€€Unless€modified€byÏthe€state€board,€the€county€board€of€equalizationððs€determinationÏis€final.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€67„5„1411.€ÌÌà àPursuant€to€statutory€authority,€the€state€board€hasÏestablished€a€three„step€procedure€to€consider€and€dispose€ofÏappeals€like€œthat€of€Thomasððs,€The›€first€step€provides€theÏdissatisfied€taxpayer€with€a€hearing€before€an€administrativeÏjudge.€€After€due€consideration,€the€administrative€judge€makes€aÏrecommendation€to€the€assessment€appeals€commission.€€A€taxpayerÏwishing€to€contest€this€recommendation€may€petition€theÏcommission.€€If€the€taxpayer€is€unsuccessful€and€theÏrecommendation€of€the€administrative€judge€is€accepted,€theÏtaxpayer€may€appeal€the€commissionððs€decision€to€the€state€board;Ïhowever,€the€statute€also€provides€that€the€decision€of€theÏcommission€is€subject€to€judicial€review,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€67„5„1502(k),€as€is€any€decision€of€the€state€œboard.›€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ67„5„1511.ÌÌà àEarly€in€1993,€Thomas€was€informed€that€the€valuation€ofÏher€residence€for€property€tax€purposes€was€$205,000€for€the€1993Ïtax€year.œ× ƒ5 ××  ×›€€Thomas€appealed€this€valuation€to€the€MetropolitanÏBoard€of€Equalization€for€Nashville€and€Davidson€County× ƒ6 ××  ×€andÏasserted€that€as€of€January€1,€1993,€the€valuation€of€her€propertyÏshould€have€been€$100,000.€€The€Metropolitan€Board€of€EqualizationÏrefused€to€grant€Thomas€relief.€€Subsequently,€in€September€ofÏ1993,€she€appealed€to€the€state€board.ÌÌà àTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€67„5„1512(b)(1)(B)€providesÏthat€it€is€a€ð ðcondition€for€appealðð€that€the€undisputed€portion€ofÏthe€property€tax€be€paid€by€the€œdelinquent›€date€and€that€noÏdelinquent€taxes€accrue€on€the€property.€€Because€the€1993Ïproperty€taxes€were€not€œdelinquent›€until€March€1,€1994,€the€stateÍboard€did€not€require€Thomas€to€pay€the€undisputed€portion€of€theÏtax€when€she€filed€her€appeal€in€September€1993.€€When€she€filedÏher€appeal,€Thomas€received€written€information€about€her€appeal.€ÏIncluded€in€the€information€was€the€following€notice:à8 àÌÓӜ̛à8 àà8 àNOTICE€REGARDING€PAYMENT€OF€TAXESÏWHILE€AN€APPEAL€IS€PENDING.ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÓ ` °œXÓà8 à€€€€€The€law€requires€that€you€payÏat€least€the€undisputed€portion€ofÏyour€taxes€prior€to€the€delinquencyÏdate€òòin€order€to€file€an€appeal.€ByÏso€doing€you€avoid€the€usual€penaltyÏand€interest€for€delinquent€taxesóó.€ÏWhen€a€final€certificate€ofÏassessment€is€issued€by€the€Board€ofÏEqualization€or€Assessment€AppealsÏCommission,€the€taxpayer€willÏreceive€a€refund€of€any€overpaymentÏor€will€owe€the€amount€of€anyÏunderpayment€of€taxes,€along€withÏinterest€at€the€rate€provided€byÏlaw.€€(Emphasis€added)€Ò ° ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓÓ ` ` šXÓÌà àOn€February€10,€1994,€Thomas€was€notified€that€herÏappeal€would€be€heard€on€March€11,€1994.€€At€the€hearing€on€MarchÏ11,€1994,€the€administrative€judge€dismissed€Thomasððs€appealÏbecause€she€had€not€paid€the€undisputed€portion€of€her€propertyÏtax.€ÌÌà àThomas€immediately€paid€the€undisputed€portion€of€theÏtax.€€On€March€30,€1994,€Thomas€filed€a€timely€petition€forÏreconsideration€and€explained€that€she€had€not€paid€her€1993Ïproperty€tax€earlier€because€she€had€received€ð ðmisleadingÏinformationðð€from€employees€of€the€state€board.œ× ƒ7 ××  ×›€€ÌÌà àOn€March€31,€1994,€the€administrative€judge€found€thatÏThomas€had€been€fully€informed€of€the€requirement€that€theÏundisputed€portion€of€the€tax€be€paid€prior€to€the€due€date€(MarchÏ1)€in€order€to€keep€her€appeal€alive.€€On€this€basis,€theÏadministrative€judge€denied€Thomasððs€petition€for€reconsideration.€ÏSpecifically,€the€administrative€judge€relied€on€the€writtenÏð ðinstructions€accompanying€all€appeal€forms€obtained€from€theÏState€Board€of€Equalizationðð€and€quoted€the€notice€regarding€theÏpayment€of€taxes€while€an€appeal€is€pending.€€The€order€denyingÏThomasððs€motion€for€reconsideration€stated€that€Thomas€couldÏappeal€both€the€administrative€judgeððs€dismissal€and€the€denial€ofÏthe€petition€for€reconsideration€to€the€assessment€appealsÏcommission€within€fifteen€days.€€Thomas€did€not€appeal€theÍadministrative€judgeððs€decision€to€the€assessment€appealsÏcommission€or€to€the€state€board.ÌÌ€à àOn€June€9,€1994,€the€assessment€appeals€commission€ofÏthe€state€board€issued€a€final€certificate€dismissing€ThomasððsÏappeal€and€affirming€the€valuation€of€the€property€as€previouslyÏdetermined€by€the€county€board€of€equalization.€€This€ð ðOfficialÏCertificate€of€the€Assessment€Appeals€Commission€Relative€to€1993ÏProperty€Assessmentsðð€included€the€following€provisions:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àÌà8 àà8 àIn€accordance€with€the€provisions€ofÏTennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€67„5„1512€and€Section€4„5„314,€theÏAssessment€Appeals€Commission€herebyÏcertifies€the€ad€valorem€assessmentÏfor€the€property€described€below.€ÏThe€assessment€is€predicated€on€theÏrecommendations€of€the€State€BoardÏof€Equalizationððs€AdministrativeÏJudge€and€òòconstitutes€the€finalÏjudgment€of€the€Commissionóó.ÌÌà àà8 à.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àòòà8 àAny€party€dissatisfied€with€thisÏdecision€is€entitled€to€judicialÏreviewóó,€proceedings€for€which€areÏinstituted€by€filing€a€petition€inÏChancery€Court€within€(60)€days€ofÏthe€date€of€this€certificate.Ï(Emphasis€added)€ÌÓÓÌà àOn€July€19,€1994,€Thomas,€with€the€assistance€ofÏcounsel,€filed€a€petition€for€judicial€review€in€the€ChanceryÏCourt€of€Davidson€County€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€67„5„1511.€ÏIn€her€petition,€Thomas€prayed:ÌœÓÓÌ›à8 àà8 àThat€the€Orders€denying€Petitioner€aÏhearing€for€her€alleged€failure€toÏcomply€within€[sic]€œT.C.A.›€SectionÏ67„5„1512(b)(1)(B)€be€vacated€andÏthe€matter€remanded€to€theÏRespondents€State€Board€ofÏEqualization,€œKelsie›€Jones€and€HelenÏJames,€for€a€full€hearing€on€theÏmerits€on€the€grounds€that€theseÏRespondents€have€denied€PetitionerÏDue€Process€guaranteed€under€theÏœ14th›€Amendment.ÌÓÓÌà àThe€state€board€moved€to€dismiss€Thomasððs€petition,Ïcontending€that€ð ðthe€plaintiff€has€failed€to€exhaust€herÏadministrative€remedies€in€this€matterðð€and€œthat›€the€trial€œcourt,Ïtherefore,›€lacked€subject€matter€jurisdiction€pursuant€to€RuleÏ12.02(1)€and€12.02(6)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure.ÌÌà àOn€October€31,€1994,€the€trial€court€concluded€that€ð ðtheÏPlaintiff€failed€to€exhaust€her€remedies€at€the€administrativeÏœlevelðð›€and€granted€the€state€boardððs€motion€to€dismiss€ThomasððsÏpetition.€€€The€Court€of€Appeals€affirmed.ÌÌà@ àIIÌÌà àGenerally€when€a€statute€provides€an€administrativeÏremedy,€one€must€exhaust€this€administrative€remedy€prior€toÏseeking€relief€from€the€courts.× ƒ8 ××  ×€€òòBracey€v.€Woodsóó,€571€S.W.2d€828,Ï829€(Tenn.€1978);€òòTennessee€Enamel€Mfg.€Co.€v.€Hakeóó,€183€Tenn.Ï615,€194€S.W.2d€468€(1946).€€The€exhaustion€doctrine€serves€toÏpreventÌÓÓÌ€à8 àà8 àpremature€interference€with€agencyÏprocesses,€so€that€the€agency€mayÏ(1)€function€efficiently€and€have€anÏopportunity€to€correct€its€ownÏerrors;€(2)€afford€the€parties€andÏthe€courts€the€benefit€of€itsÏexperience€and€expertise€without€theÏthreat€of€litigious€interruption;Ïand€(3)€compile€a€record€which€isÏadequate€for€judicial€review.€€InÏaddition,€an€agency€has€an€interestÏin€discouraging€frequent€andÏdeliberate€flouting€of€theÏadministrative€process.ÌÓÓÌ2€Am.Jur.2d€òòAdministrative€Lawóó€ðð€505€(1994)(footnotes€omitted).€ÌÌà àIn€Tennessee,€exhaustion€is€not€statutorily€requiredÏunless€the€statute€ð ðby€its€plain€wordsðð€requires€it.€€òòReeves€v.ÏOlsenóó,€691€S.W.2d€527,€530€(Tenn.€1985).€€Although€the€statutesÏexpressly€grant€the€board€the€authority€to€create€the€assessmentÏappeals€commission€and€to€designate€administrative€judges€to€makeÏpreliminary€recommendations,€œnothing›€in€the€statute€œexpressly›Ïrequires€the€taxpayer€to€avail€herself€of€these€steps.€€Rather,Ïthe€statute€providing€for€appeal€to€the€assessment€appealsÏcommission€is€worded€permissively:ÌÓÓÌà8 àòòIf€an€exception€to€the€recommendation€of€theÏhearing€examiner€is€taken€by€either€theÏproperty€owner€oróó.€.€.assessment€appealsÏcommission€does€not€adopt€the€recommendationÏof€the€hearing€examiner,€a€hearing€shall€beÏscheduled.€.€.€.ÓÓÌÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€67„5„1506.€€As€for€an€appeal€to€the€board€fromÏthe€decision€of€the€assessment€appeals€commission,€the€statuteÏexpressly€provides€that€the€ð ðcertificate€of€assessment€or€otherÏfinal€certificate€of€[the€assessment€appeals€commissionððs]€actionððÏis€subject€to€judicial€review€in€the€same€manner€as€is€a€finalÏaction€by€the€board.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€67„5„1502(k).€€Thus,€œany›Íappeal€to€the€board€from€an€action€of€the€assessment€appealsÏcommission€is€œclearly€discretionary.›€€In€our€view,€Thomas€was€notÏrequired€to€exhaust€the€administrative€remedies€internal€to€theÏboard.€€Thomasððs€petition€was€properly€before€the€trial€court,€andÏthe€boardððs€motion€to€dismiss€should€have€been€denied.ÌÌ€à@ àIIIÌÌà àNeither€the€trial€court€nor€the€Court€of€AppealsÏaddressed€the€propriety€of€the€administrative€judgeððs€dismissal€ofÏThomasððs€appeal.€€However,€the€issue€has€been€raised€and€briefedÏby€the€parties,€and€we€will€address€it.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(a).€€€ÌÌà àThomas€insists€that€the€state€board€failed€to€adequatelyÏnotify€her€that€her€appeal€was€subject€to€dismissal€should€sheÏfail€to€pay€the€undisputed€portion€of€the€tax€by€the€due€date.€ÏBecause€the€state€board€failed€to€notify€her€of€theseÏconsequences,€she€urges€that€the€dismissal€violated€her€dueÏprocess€rights€under€the€Fourteenth€Amendment€to€the€United€StatesÏConstitution.€€ÌœÌÌ›€à àTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€67„5„1512(b)(1)(B)€states:ÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 àExcept€as€provided€in€subdivisionÏ(b)(1)(C),€it€is€a€condition€forÏappeal€that€the€undisputed€portionÏof€the€tax€levied€be€paid€before€theÏdelinquent€date€of€the€tax€and€thatÏno€delinquent€taxes€have€accrued€onÏthe€property.× ƒ9 ××  ×ÓÓÌœÌThe›€phrase€ð ðcondition€for€appealðð€could€refer€to€either€òòfilingóó€anÏappeal€or€òòmaintainingóó€an€appeal.œ€€It€is€interesting€to€note€thatÏthe€state€boardððs€own€notice€interprets€the€statute€as€imposingÏthe€condition€on€the€filing€of€the€appeal.€€By€contrast,€the€stateÏboard€interpreted€the€statute€as€imposing€the€condition€on€theÏmaintenance€of€an€appeal€in€its€dismissal€of€Thomasððs€appeal€andÏin€its€arguments€to€this€Court.€€The›€statute€is€simply€not€clear.€ÏFurthermore,€the€statute€does€not€prevent€the€reinstatement€of€anÏappeal€when€the€taxpayer€pays€the€undisputed€portion€of€the€tax€inÏa€timely€manner€after€the€entry€of€an€initial€order€dismissing€theÏappeal.€ÌÌà àWe€do€not€find€that€the€facts€of€this€case€rise€to€theÏlevel€of€a€constitutional€due€process€violation.€€However,€we€doÏfind€œthat,›€given€the€ambiguity€of€the€statute,€Thomasððs€course€ofÏaction€was€entirely€reasonable,€and€she€should€not€be€penalizedÏfor€it.€€When€agencies€undertake€to€provide€information€to€partiesÏto€administrative€proceedings,€that€information€should€be€completeÏand€accurate.€€òòœSimmons›€v.€œTraughber›óó,€791€S.W.2d€21,€24„25€(Tenn.Ï1990).€ÌÌà àœAccordingly,›€the€decision€of€the€Court€of€Appeals€isÏreversed.€€The€cause€is€remanded€to€the€state€board€ofÏequalization€for€a€hearing€to€determine€the€proper€valuation€ofÏThomasððs€property.€€Costs€are€taxed€to€the€respondents.ÌÓÓÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àADOLPHO€A.€BIRCH,€JR.,€Chief€JusticeÌÌœÌ̛̜CONCUR:€›€DROWOTA,€ANDERSON,€œREID,›€œJJ.›Ì