ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter came before me pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 12-60-2540(A)(2000) for a contested case hearing requested by
Carl R. Harris against the Georgetown County Assessor. Petitioner contests the Assessor's reassessment for the 2000 tax
year of real property identified as TMS#41-131-79, located within Inlet Harbour in Garden City Beach, Georgetown
County, South Carolina.
The Petitioner exhausted all prehearing remedies with the Assessor and the Georgetown County Board of Assessment
Appeals and is now before the Administrative Law Judge Division. The hearing of this matter was conducted on
September 12, 2002, at the offices of the Division in Columbia, South Carolina. At the call of the case, the parties were
present as indicated above.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based upon the evidence presented, I make the following findings of fact, taking into consideration the burden on the
parties to establish their respective cases by a preponderance of the evidence, and taking into account the credibility of the
witnesses.
1. This Division has personal and subject matter jurisdiction.
2. Notice of the date, time, place and nature of the hearing was timely given to all parties.
3. The Petitioner purchased this property in 1977. It is a rectangular shaped property, with 90.0 feet on Sailfish Drive and
90.6 feet of sandy beachfront on Murrells Inlet Creek. The sidelines are approximately 330 feet, and the lot contains .68
acres. A 1645 square foot single-family house was built on the property in 1981.
4. The County conducted a county-wide reassessment for tax year 2000 based on mass appraisal methods. The Assessor
determined that the total market value for the property as of December 31, 1999 was $477,836. On February 14, 2000, the
Petitioner submitted his protest estimating the value to be $255,000. The Assessor reduced the value to $460,259. on May
1, 2000. The Petitioner filed a formal appeal on May 18, 2000 contending the value to be $249,208.
5. The Georgetown County Board of Assessment Appeals held a hearing on March 4, 2002, where the Petitioner claimed
the value of his property to be $236,374. On March 14, 2002,the Board issued its decision that the Assessor's value of
$460,259 should stand. This Petition followed.
- The Petitioner's position is that the Board failed to consider his contention that he
does not have a sub-lot, or boat dock and access to water. He states that he has been advised by the Coastal Council that he
will never be able to have a dock or access to Murrells Inlet Creek or the ocean by boat. The Petitioner did not present any
documentation of this claim. In addition, the Petitioner failed to provide any independent appraisals from licensed
appraisers supporting his valuation of his property.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. This Division has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. §12-60-
2540 (2000).
2. Once the assessor establishes the basis for the valuation, her decision as to the situs
of property, its taxability, and the valuation put on it generally is presumed correct until the contrary appears, and the
person complaining has the burden of proving his grievance. Newberry Mills v. Dawkins, 259 S.C. 7, 190 S.E.2d 503
(1972); 84 C.J.S. Taxation §537 (1954). The taxpayer has met this burden if he proves the actual value of the property is a
value other than that determined by the taxing authority. Cloyd v. Mabry, 295 S.C. 86, 367 S.E.2d 171 (Ct.App.1988).
3. S.C. Code Ann. §12-37-90 (Supp. 2000) provides that all counties shall have an
assessor, whose responsibility is appraising and listing all real property.
4. As the party contesting the assessing authority's valuation, the Petitioner has the
burden of proving the actual value of the properties. See Reliance Insurance Co. v. Smith, 327 S.C. 528, 489 S.E.2d 674
(Ct. App. 1997); Cloyd v. Mabry, 295 S.C. 86, 367 S.E.2d 171, 173 (Ct. App. 1988). While the Petitioner asserts that the
Assessor's values are too high, he has failed to present any contrary evidence as to the proper value of the subject property.
Consequently, the assessing authority's value is presumed correct. See Reliance Insurance Co., 327 S.C. at 534. "All
property must be assessed uniformly and equitably throughout the State...." S.C. Code Ann. §12-43-210(A)(Supp.2000).
5. The proper measure of value for taxation purposes is the fair market value. Lindsey
v. South Carolina Tax Comm'n, 302 S.C. 504, 397 S.E.2d 95 (1990). Fair market value is defined in S.C. Code § 12-37-930 (Rev. 2000) as: " . . . the price which the property would bring following reasonable exposure to the market, where
both the seller and the buyer are willing, are not under compulsion, and are reasonably well informed of the uses and
purposes for which it is adapted and for which it is capable of being used."
6. The property's highest and best use must be considered in calculating the property's
value. "Highest and best use" may be defined as "the reasonable, probable and legal use of vacant land or improved
property, which is physically possible, appropriately supported, financially feasible, and that results in the highest value."
The Appraisal of Real Estate, Appraisal Institute, p. 45 (10th ed. 1992). The property at issue in this case is regularly rented
by vacationers, and the property's rental price is above what similarly situated properties bring.
7. To determine a fair market price for the subject property, comparisons of the sale
price of other properties of the same character may be utilized. See Smith v. Newberry County Assessor, 2002 WL
1159870 (S.C. Ct. App. June 3, 2002); 84 C.J.S. Taxation §§ 410-411 at 785, 797 (1954).
8. While not conclusive, market sales of comparable properties present probative
evidence of the fair market value of similar property. 84 C.J.S. Taxation § 411 (1954); see generally Smith v. Newberry
County Assessor, supra.
9. In this case, the Petitioner has attempted to use comparable sales to show that
the value of his property should be less than those sales. He has failed, however, to have an independent appraisal done.
He has attempted to rely on the listings of these other properties and the knowledge of his own property to form his
comparisons. In addition, the Petitioner has failed to provide any documentation to support his claim that he is unable to
construct a dock on his property.
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Georgetown County Assessor's reassessment of the property is AFFIRMED.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
_______________________________
Carolyn C. Matthews
Administrative Law Judge
January 14, 2003 |
