SC Administrative Law Court Decisions

The parties appeared before me on December 4, 2008, for a hearing on Petitioner Stanley H. Smith’s appeal from the decision of the Lancaster County Board of Assessment Appeals.  Petitioner, Stanley H. Smith, appeared pro se; Paul D. Harrill, of McNair Law Firm, P.A., appeared for Respondent Lancaster County Assessor.

            Evidence was presented by Petitioner and Respondent, and the Court took this matter under advisement.  After consideration of all testimony and evidence presented at the hearing, the Court hereby affirms the decision of the Lancaster County Board of Assessment Appeals and denies the Petitioner’s Appeal.  The Court’s decision is based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth below:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1.                  On October 1, 2006, the Lancaster County Assessor’s Office sent a 2006 Tax Year Assessment to Petitioner for his property known as 9619 Possum Hollow Road, containing a total of 8.53 acres, and identified as tax map number 0008-00-022.00.  The initial Notice of Assessment reflected 5 acres of the parcel was classified as “owner occupied residential,” while the remaining 3.53 acres was classified as “other property.”  This initial Assessment Notice applied an assessment ratio of .04 to the market value of the 5 acres of owner occupied residential property and an assessment ratio of .06 to the market value of the remaining 3.53 acres of Petitioner’s property.  The October 1, 2006 Assessment Notice placed a market value on the 5 acre owner occupied residential portion of the property of $427,900.00.  The October 1, 2006 Assessment Notice inadvertently failed to place any market value on the remaining 3.53 acres of the subject property.  This resulted in an error in the total market value of the property and the total assessment. 

2.                  Petitioner did not appeal from the October 1, 2006 Notice of Assessment. 

3.                  The Lancaster County Assessor’s Office corrected its error when its 2006 Property Tax Notice increased the total appraised value of the 8.53 acre parcel to $612,200.00.

4.                  On or about December 4, 2006, Petitioner Stanley H. Smith filed an Application for Review of Appraisal/Assessment with the Respondent Lancaster County Assessor.

5.                  Petitioner’s application indicated that his estimate of the fair market value of the property was $300,000.00 because 50% of his property was unusable and a power substation had been placed “in his front yard.”

6.                  On February 9, 2007, the Lancaster County Assessor changed the appraised value of Petitioner’s 8.53 acre parcel from $612,200.00 to $488,200.00 – resulting in a change in assessed value from $28,174.00 to $22,558.00 and a corresponding reduction in his tax. 

7.                  On or about February 28, 2007, Petitioner Stanley H. Smith filed a Board of Assessment Appeals Application contesting the decision of the Respondent Lancaster County Assessor.  In that Application, Petitioner estimated the fair market value of his property to be $250,000.00. 

8.                  A hearing was held before the Lancaster County Board of Assessment Appeals.  On May 8, 2008, the Lancaster County Board of Assessment Appeals issued its Order upholding the Assessor’s appraised value of $488,200.00 for Petitioner’s 8.53 acre parcel.

9.                  On or about May 19, 2008, Petitioner Stanley H. Smith filed his letter with the Administrative Law Court indicating his intention to assert this Appeal.

10.              As set forth above, the Appeal from the Lancaster County Board of Assessment Appeals was heard by this Court on December 4, 2008.

11.              Petitioner testified, and Respondent presented testimony of Doug Smith, Deputy Assessor for Lancaster County. 

12.              Petitioner testified that the appraised value of his property should be reduced because there was approximately 3 acres that was low-lying land that was unusable and diminished the value of the overall property.

13.              Petitioner introduced into evidence, over the objection of Respondent, numerous documents relating to the assessment of other properties located in Lancaster County around or near the subject 8.53 acre parcel. 

14.              Although the Court admitted these documents into evidence for consideration, the Court finds the assessed value of other properties in the general vicinity of the subject property to be of limited relevance to the fair market value of Petitioner’s property.

15.              Petitioner did not present any evidence at the hearing of the actual fair market value of the property in question.

16.              Mr. Doug Smith is a Deputy Assessor for Lancaster County.  He was qualified as an expert witness to testify regarding the fair market value of property in Lancaster County.  Mr. Smith testified that the fair market value of the property in question was at least $488,200.00.[1]  I so find as a matter of fact.

17.              In determining the fair market value of Petitioner’s 8.53 acre parcel, Doug Smith considered the low-lying land on Petitioner’s property and reduced the value based upon that topographical issue.

18.              The entirety of Petitioner’s 8.53 acre parcel had been re-zoned for commercial use at Petitioner’s request prior to the reassessment in 2006. 

19.              Regardless of the commercial zoning of Petitioner’s entire tract, 5 acres of the property continues to get the benefit of the lower, residential ratio for calculating the assessment value because his residence is located on a portion of the 8.53 acre parcel. See §§ 12-43-215 and 12-43-220(c)(1).

20.              Doug Smith has appraised thousands of properties in Lancaster County, including numerous properties in the vicinity of the subject parcel.  The subject property is located in that portion of Lancaster County that is in the Suburban Charlotte, North Carolina area. 

21.              After reducing the value of the subject property due to the topographical issues, the appraiser valued the Petitioner’s 8.53 acre parcel in the exact same manner in which he appraises all other properties located in that portion of Lancaster County.

22.              After reducing the value of the property due to the topographical issues, the fair market value of the subject property was established at a per acre price that is consistent with all other similarly situated property in that portion of Lancaster County.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

            Pursuant to South Carolina Code §§ 12-37-90 and 12-37-930, the property in question should be assessed based upon its fair market value. See also Lindsey v. South Carolina Tax Com’n, 397 S.E.2d 95, 97 (S.C. 1990).

As set forth in the above Findings of Fact, Petitioner failed to present any evidence of the fair market value of his 8.53 acre parcel located at 9619 Possum Hollow Road, Fort Mill, South Carolina property (tax map number 0008-00-022.00).  The Court, therefore, concludes that the Petitioner failed to present evidence sufficient to reverse the May 8, 2008 decision of the Lancaster County Board of Assessment Appeals, and that decision is hereby affirmed. 

This Court further finds that even if Petitioner presented any evidence of the fair market value of his property, the Court finds the evidence and testimony of Doug Smith to be more credible and compelling on the valuation issue. 

The Court, therefore, finds that the value of the subject property is at least $488,200.00.  The decision of the Lancaster County Board of Assessment Appeals is, therefore, affirmed and Petitioner’s Appeal is denied.

            IT IS SO ORDERED.