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:
Burnett Gaston vs. Calhoun County Assessor

AGENCY:
Calhoun County Assessor

PARTIES:
Petitioner:
Burnett Gaston

Respondent:
Calhoun County Assessor
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
02-ALJ-17-0115-CC

APPEARANCES:
For the Petitioner: Burnett Gaston, Pro Se

For the Respondent: F. Lee Prickett, Jr., Esquire
 

ORDERS:

FINAL ORDER AND DECISION

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is a case brought by Burnett Gaston (Petitioner) against the Calhoun County Assessor (Assessor) concerning whether the Petitioner's property should be assessed at a lower tax value for the tax year 2001. The Petitioner requested that the Assessor lower the property valuation for TMS No. 007-00-02-061 and was denied this request. Subsequently, the Calhoun County Board of Assessment Appeals upheld the Assessor’s denial. The Petitioner then sought a hearing before the Administrative Law Judge Division (Division). A hearing was held on October 16, 2002, at the offices of the Division.[1]


ISSUE PRESENTED FOR DETERMINATION

What is the appropriate value for tax year 2001 of a parcel of real property located in Calhoun County, South Carolina, also known as Tax Map. No. 007-00-02-061 or Lot 61 of Calmont Subdivision?

FINDINGS OF FACT

Having observed the witnesses and exhibits presented at the hearing and closely passed upon their credibility, taking into consideration the burden of persuasion by the parties, I make the following Findings of Fact by a preponderance of evidence:

1. Notice of the time, date, place and nature of the hearing was timely given to all parties.

2. The Petitioner owns Lot 61 of Calmont Subdivision located in rural Calhoun County. The property is approximately 1.824 acres with an estimated 276 feet fronting on Calmont Pond. No testimony was presented that there are any structures situated on the property. The property is also located in close proximity to the Lexington County line. The Petitioner purchased the subject property for $18,000.00 in August 1996.

3. Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. §12-43-217 (2000), Calhoun County conducted a countywide reassessment for the tax year 2001. The assessment was based upon a mass appraisal. Pursuant to that reassessment, the Assessor determined that the total assessed market value of the Petitioner’s property was $15,000.00. This amount did not represent a change in the County’s valuation from the previous assessment. On or about April 9, 2001, the Petitioner submitted his protest in which he estimated the value of the property to be $14,000.00. On January 18, 2002, the Calhoun County Board of Assessment Appeals notified the Petitioner that it was accepting the County’s assessment value of $15,000.00. It is from that decision that the Petitioner appeals to this Division.


4. In addition to the mass appraisal, the Assessor supported his appraisal with a market sales analysis of the Petitioner’s property conducted after the Petitioner filed his protest. Three parcels of property were used and they were chosen based upon their similarity in size, location, view, use, adequate drainage and topography.[2] The first comparable appraisal was Lot 62 in Calmont Subdivision, located directly adjacent to the subject property. This lot sold in May 1999 for $18,000.00. The appraiser did not make any adjustments for this property amount as it is in a similar, if not identical, situation as the subject property, and assigned a value of $18,000.00 to Lot 62. The second comparable appraisal was of Lot 66 in Calmont Subdivision. This lot is five lots away from the subject property and the appraiser assigned a value of $18,000.00 to this property, the amount it sold for in May 1999, as well. Again, the appraiser did not make any adjustments to this amount because she found this property to be similar to the Petitioner’s lot. The third comparison was of Lot 60 in Calmont Subdivision, also situated directly adjacent to the subject property. It sold for $13,000.00 in October 2000 and the appraiser assigned this value to the property without any adjustments. The appraiser also noted that this property was sold subject to a “distress sale” but did not present any specific details regarding the sale of Lot 60. I find these comparables to be acceptable, although I also find the appraiser’s report to be deficient in detail regarding the physical similarities of the comparables to the subject property.


5. The Petitioner argues that the Assessor valued his property $1,000.00 too high. As opposed to presenting comparable properties consistent with the market sales analysis approach in support of his contention, the Petitioner presented evidence in the form of two Lexington County Tax Assessments for property he owns in that county. The Petitioner argues that those properties, known as Tract 1 and Tract 4, are valued at a lower rate for the same tax year.[3] He also sets forth that those properties are more adequately maintained and provided better services by Lexington County than Lot 62 located in Calhoun County. The subject property, he claims, is difficult to access because Calhoun County does not properly maintain the dirt road it is located on, Calmont Drive. The Petitioner presented photographic evidence of erosion on Calmont Drive. However, the Petitioner also testified that the road is maintained by the Calmont Home Owners Association, of which he is not a member.

I find that the Petitioner’s argument must fail regarding the differences in the Lexington and Calhoun County property assessments because reassessments are statutorily authorized to be conducted by each individual county. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-43-217 ( 2000) provides, in relevant part, that "once every fifth year each county or the State shall appraise and equalize those properties under its jurisdiction." (emphasis added). Therefore, I find that the Petitioner’s comparison of the value assessed by Calhoun County of property located in that County with the value assessed by Lexington County of property located in that County, even though the properties may be relatively close in proximity, to be without legal authority.[4]

I also find the Petitioner’s argument that Calmont Drive has not been properly maintained to be unpersuasive. The appraiser testified at the hearing that she did not have difficulty navigating Calmont Drive when she conducted the appraisal pursuant to this protest. Furthermore, even if the road has not been properly maintained, I find that insufficient evidence was presented to warrant a reduction of the Calhoun County Assessor’s assessment based on the condition of the road in this case.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Based upon the above Findings of Fact, I conclude the following as a matter of law:

1. S.C. Code Ann. §12-60-2540 (2000) authorizes the Division to hear this contested case pursuant to Chapter 23 of Title 1 of the 1976 Code of Laws, as amended. The taxable status of real property for a given year is to be determined as of December 31 of the preceding tax year. S.C. Code Ann. §12-37-900 ( 2000); Atkinson Dredging Company v. Thomas, 266 S.C. 361, 223 S.E.2d 592 (1976).

2. In S.C. Code Ann. §12-37-930 ( 2000) the legislature set forth how real property must be valued:


All real property shall be valued for taxation at its true value in money which in all cases shall be held to be the price which the property would bring following reasonable exposure to the market, where both the seller and buyer are willing, are not acting under compulsion, and are reasonably well informed as to the uses and purposes of which it is adapted and for which it is capable of being used.

Therefore, fair market value is the measure of true value for taxation purposes. Lindsay v. S.C. Tax Comm’n, 302 S.C. 504, 397 S.E.2d 95 (1990). There is no valid distinction between market value for sales purposes and market value for taxation purposes under Section 12-37-930. S.C. Tax Comm’n v. S.C. Tax Board of Review, 287 S.C. 415, 339 S.E.2d 131 (Ct. App.1985).

3. An Assessor’s valuation is presumed correct and the property owner bears the burden of proving the Assessor’s determination is not correct. 84 C.J.S. Taxation § 410 (1954). Ordinarily, this is done by proving the actual value of the property. The taxpayer may, however, show by other evidence that the assessing authority’s valuation is incorrect. If he does so, the presumption of correctness is removed and the taxpayer is entitled to appropriate relief. Cloyd v. Mabry, 295 S.C. 86, 367 S.E.2d 171 (Ct. App. 1988).

4. While not conclusive, market sales of comparable properties present probative evidence of fair market value of similar property. 84 C.J.S. Taxation § 411 (1954). Furthermore, in estimating the value of property, all of the factors which affect market value or would influence the mind of a purchaser should be considered, such as location, quality, condition and use. See 84 C.J.S. Taxation § 410 at 784; § 411 at 794 (1954).


To determine a fair market price for the Petitioner’s property, comparisons of the sale price of other properties of the same character may be utilized. See Appraisal Institute, The Appraisal of Real Estate 367 (10th ed. 1992)[5]; Cloyd v. Mabry, 295 S.C. 86, 367 S.E. 2d 171 (Ct. App. 1988); 84 C.J.S. Taxation §§ 410-411 at 785, 797 (1954). While it is impossible to predict with certainty what a particular property will sell for, utilizing comparable sales is a good indicator of what a potential purchaser will likely pay and it provides probative evidence of the market value of the subject property, if the comparables are similar in character, location and physical characteristics. See 84 C.J.S. Taxation § 411 (1954).

5. In the instant case, the Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof of showing that the valuation of Lot 61 in Calmont Subdivision was incorrect. I therefore find that the assessed value of $15,000.00 is fair and accurate.

ORDER

Based upon the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the assessed value of $15,000.00 be affirmed.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Ralph King Anderson, III

Administrative Law Judge

March 14, 2003

Columbia, South Carolina



[1] On May 9, 2002, F. Lee Prickett, Jr., the attorney for Calhoun County, filed a Motion to Dismiss which set forth that the Petitioner did not timely file this contested case with the Division, pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 12-60-2540(A). That section sets forth: “Within thirty days after the date of the Board’s written decision, a property taxpayer . . .may appeal a property tax assessment made by the board by requesting a contested case hearing before the Administrative Law Judge Division. . . .” The Board issued its written decision on January 18, 2002. Pursuant to the language contained in the Board’s written decision, the Petitioner sent his letter appealing the Board’s decision to the Division on January 29, 2002. That appeal letter is accompanied by a post-marked envelope retained in the Division’s file. The Board’s written decision letter did not instruct the Petitioner to copy the Board with his appeal letter to the Division and did not include instructions regarding the Division’s $70.00 filing fee requirement.

On February 1, 2002, the Petitioner was sent the “Filing Fee Memo & Attachments” which contained instructions that he remit the filing fee within ten (10) days from the date of that Memo. The next packet of papers in the file were filed on March 27, 2002, by the Petitioner. These included a new Notice of Appeal accompanied by the filing fee. The envelope for this mailing was not retained in the file. Thereafter, this matter was assigned to this office on April 3, 2002. Based on the foregoing, the Motion to Dismiss was denied.

[2] A proper appraisal under the market sales analysis approach requires adjustments to be made to the comparables when necessary in accordance with accepted appraisal practices to reach a correct value of the property.

[3] Tract 1 consists of 10.08 acres with a market value of $16,130.00 while Tract 4 is comprised of 9.00 acres with a market value of $14,400.00.

[4] It should also be further noted that the Lexington County properties are classified as agricultural use (with one tract having a Homestead Exemption) while Lot 62 in Calhoun County is classified as mixed use, thereby making them more dissimilar and inappropriate for comparison.

[5] South Carolina courts, as well as other jurisdictions, have relied on the Appraisal Institute’s standards for valuation as published and updated in several editions of The Appraisal of Real Estate. See, e.g., South Carolina Tax Comm’n v. South Carolina Tax Board of Review, 287 S.C. 415, 339 S.E. 2d 131 (Ct. App. 1985); Badische Corporation (BASF) v. Town of Kearny, 288 N.J. Super. 171, 672 A.2d 186, 189 (1996).


Brown Bldg.

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2024 South Carolina Administrative Law Court