South Carolina              
Administrative Law Court
Edgar A. Brown building 1205 Pendleton St., Suite 224 Columbia, SC 29201 Voice: (803) 734-0550

SC Administrative Law Court Decisions

CAPTION:
Orangeburg County Assessor vs. First Lake Corporation

AGENCY:
Orangeburg County Assessor

PARTIES:
Petitioners:
Orangeburg County Assessor

Respondents:
First Lake Corporation
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
96-ALJ-17-0343-CC

APPEARANCES:
Sidney B. Fulton, III, for Petitioner

Don Eubanks for Respondent
 

ORDERS:

ORDER AND DECISION

This matter was before the Administrative Law Judge Division upon the request of the Petitioner pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 12-60-2540 (Supp. 1995) seeking review of the Orangeburg County Board of Tax Equalization order dated July 11, 1996 granting an appeal to First Lake Corporation (taxpayer) relating to the assessed value of certain property for tax year 1996. The Orangeburg County Assessor contends that the appeal by taxpayer is not timely. After notice to the parties, a hearing was conducted on Thursday, January 9, 1997. As a result of the hearing, I conclude that the appeal was not timely for the 1996 property tax year.

FINDINGS OF FACT

I make the following findings of fact, taking into consideration the burden on the parties to establish their perspective cases by a preponderance of the evidence and taking into account the credibility of the witnesses:

1. The taxpayer is the owner of the property consisting of land with improvements.

2. The property is located at Russell Street in Orangeburg, South Carolina and is identified on the Orangeburg County Tax Map as Tax Map #0171-14-09-014.

3. The taxpayer became the owner of the property during December of 1993 and remained the owner of the property during 1996. Deeds recorded in April 1996 reflect changes in corporate name as a result of reorganization.

4. The last county wide reassessment occurred in 1987. At that time, the property was valued at $33,700 land and $1,234,864 building. The value has not change since that time.

5. The assessor did not issue to the taxpayer an assessment notice for the 1996 tax year. The tax bill generated by the auditor's office provided notice to the taxpayer of the procedure to appeal any determination of value.

6. In addition, the taxpayer through its representative discussed the assessed value with the assessor's office in the fall of 1995 and in early 1996.

7. Prior to March 1, 1996, the taxpayer did not provide written notice to the assessor of the its objection to the assessor's determination of fair market value for the 1996 tax year.

8. By the taxpayer's undated letter to the assessor and received by the assessor on May 3, 1996, the taxpayer requested a reduction in taxes on the property.

9. The assessor did not change the assessed value of the property, but simply forwarded the letter to the Orangeburg County Board and objected on the basis of the timeliness of the request.

10. The Board granted the request of the taxpayer.

11. The assessor appealed the Board's decision.

12. The taxpayer's letter requesting a reduction in taxes on the property is deemed by the Orangeburg County Assessor to be a timely notice for the 1997 tax year.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

Based on the foregoing findings of fact, I conclude as a matter of law, the following:

1. A hearing body has the duty to determine whether it has jurisdiction of a matter. Bridges v. Wyandotte Worsted Co., 243 S.C. 1, 132 S.E.2d 198 (1963).

2. Failure to satisfy the time limits for appeal is fatal since an untimely appeal prohibits the hearing body from deciding the matter. Mears v. Mears, 287 S.C. 168, 337 S.E.2d 206 (1985); Burnett v. S.C. Highway Dep't, 252 S.C. 568, 167 S.E.2d 571 (1969); Stromp v. Duke Power Co.,216 S.C. 79, 56 S.E.2d 745 (1949); Orangeburg County Assessor v. David and Fera O'Cain, ALJD Docket No.: 96-ALJ-17-0344-CC (October 29, 1996).

3. Jurisdiction vests where the statutory appeal requirement are satisfied. S.C. Code Ann. §§ 12-43-300 and 12-60-2510 (Supp. 1995). Under S.C. Code Ann. §§ 12-43-300 and 12-60-2510 (Supp. 1995) if no assessment notice is issued, the taxpayer must file a written objection to the assessor by March 1 of the tax year in dispute. The statute must be followed.

4. The Board and the Administrative Law Judge Division lack subject matter jurisdiction since the taxpayer failed to appeal the 1996 assessment by March 1, 1996. S.C. Code Ann.§§12-43-300 and 12-60-2510 (Supp. 1996).

ORDER

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law, it is hereby

ORDERED, that the Board's decision to reduce the value of the taxpayer's property identified as Orangeburg County Tax Map #0171-14-09-014 is reversed and the value as previously determined by the assessor shall be the value of the property for the 1996 tax year.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.





_______________________________

ALISON RENEE LEE

Administrative Law Judge



January _____, 1997

Columbia, South Carolina.


 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2025 South Carolina Administrative Law Court