SC Administrative Law Court Decisions

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This matter is before the Administrative Law Court (ALC or Court) pursuant to the request for contested case hearing filed May 9, 2008. A. Todd Harward and Sara B. Harward (Taxpayers or Petitioners) contend the Newberry County Board of Assessment Appeals (Board) erroneously dismissed Taxpayers’ appeal regarding their objection to the valuation and assessment of real property owned by Taxpayers. On July 1, 2008, the Newberry County Assessor (Assessor) filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in this matter to which the Taxpayers have filed no reply.

FINDINGS OF FACT

This contested case arises from a disagreement for the 2006 tax year between Taxpayers and Assessor concerning the value of real property owned by the Taxpayers. Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 12-60-2530 (Rev. 2000), Taxpayers requested a conference before the Board to object to the Assessor’s valuation and assessment of their property. A conference was scheduled to take place at 10:30 a.m. on April 30, 2008. Subsequent to the scheduling of the matter, a staff member of the Assessor’s office left a telephone message inquiring whether Taxpayers would like to re-schedule the conference at 9:00 a.m. with the understanding that the originally scheduled hearing time would not be changed unless informed otherwise by Taxpayers. Taxpayers provided no response and failed to appear at the conference at the originally scheduled date (April 30, 2008).[1] Accordingly, a default decision was entered against Taxpayers.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Summary judgment is appropriate where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Redwend Ltd. P’ship v. Edwards, 354 S.C. 459, 468, 581 S.E.2d 496, 501 (Ct. App. 2003). When determining whether any triable issues of fact exist, the reviewing court must view the evidence and all inferences which can be reasonably drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Law v. S.C. Dep’t of Corrs., 368 S.C. 424, 434, 629 S.E.2d 642, 648 (2006). Under Rule 56, SCRCP, the moving party bears the initial burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Hedgepath v. AT&T, 348 S.C. 340, 354, 559 S.E.2d 327, 335 (Ct. App. 2001). With respect to an issue upon which the nonmoving party has the burden of proof, this initial responsibility may be discharged by showing that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case. Id. Once this initial burden is carried, “the opposing party must, under Rule 56(e), do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts but must come forward with specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Id. (internal citations omitted).

It is well settled that administrative remedies must be exhausted absent circumstances supporting an exception. Hyde v. South Carolina Dep’t of Mental Health, 314 S.C. 207, 208, 442 S.E.2d 582, 583 (1994). “Where an adequate administrative remedy is available to determine a question of fact, one must pursue the administrative remedy or be precluded from seeking relief in the courts.” Id.

Appeals of county property tax assessments are governed by S.C. Code Ann. § 12-60-2510 et seq. (Rev. 2000). S.C. Code Ann. § 12-60-2530 provides a general framework for appeals before a county board. It states, in pertinent part:

The board shall have the authority and jurisdiction to enter a default decision if either the property taxpayer or the assessor fails to appear at the conference, if proper notice of the conference was given. If a default decision is entered against the property taxpayer for failure to appear at the conference, the property tax assessment becomes a final property tax assessment.

S.C. Code Ann. § 12-60-2530 (C) (4) (Rev. 2000).

Furthermore, S.C. Code Ann. § 12-60-2540 (B) (Rev. 2000) provides the following:

If a taxpayer requests a contested case hearing before the Administrative Law Judge Division without exhausting his prehearing remedy because he failed to file a protest or attend the conference with the county board of assessment appeals, the Administrative Law Judge shall dismiss the action without prejudice.

(emphasis added).

Here, Taxpayers were provided notice of the summary judgment motion and time beyond the statutorily prescribed time to respond and have taken no action.[2] They have not presented any specific facts or any evidence showing that there is a genuine issue for this Court to consider. As such, due to the uncontroverted evidence before me, I find that Taxpayers failed to exhaust their administrative remedies prior to filing their request for a contested case hearing. Accordingly, pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 12-60-2540 (B), supra, this matter must be dismissed.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Assessor’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and this matter be DISMISSED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the assessed value of real property identified as Tax Map number 594-7-6 for the 2006 tax year shall remain $318,400.00 resulting in a $19,100.00 tax assessment against Taxpayers.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

__________________________________

JOHN D. MCLEOD

Administrative Law Judge

November 13, 2008

Columbia, South Carolina