ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
I. Introduction
In this case, James Island Development Company, LLC (James Island) asserts that three specific properties should be valued for the 2001 tax year as “homeowner’s association property” pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 12-43-230(d) and §12-43-227. The Charleston County Assessor (Assessor) and the Charleston County Board of Assessment Appeals (Board) determined that no such valuation could be granted since James Island failed under S.C. Code Ann. § 12-60-2510 to timely challenge the initial decision of the Assessor not to value the property as homeowner association property.
James Island continues to disagree with the Assessor’s determination and has brought this matter to the Administrative Law Judge Division. I conclude the challenge to the Assessor’s determination is not timely and thus no jurisdiction exists to hear the merits of this case.
II. Analysis
A. Applicable Facts
For the 2000 tax year, James Island notified the assessor that it wished to challenge the valuations of three parcels of property identified as 431-00-00-033, 431-00-00-059, and 431-00-00-060. In response, the Assessor informed James Island on September 18, 2000 that the time for challenging the 2000 valuations had expired but that the Assessor would consider the request as a challenge to the existing valuation for the 2001 tax year. No appeal was made of the Assessor’s decision.
However, as to the 2001 tax year, intervening circumstances changed the valuation of the properties so that the 2000 valuations were not longer controlling for the 2001 tax year. Rather, Charleston County had begun a reassessment program for all of Charleston County as to the 2001 tax year. In a letter to James Island on January 4, 2001, the Assessor notified the taxpayer that a new valuation for the properties would be forthcoming. The letter states the following:
This letter supersedes our letter dated September 18, 2000 which states the properties will be reviewed for the 2001 tax year. Charleston County is scheduled for a reassessment of all property values for the 2001 tax year. You will receive notice with the new values to be mailed by February 1, 2001. At that time, if you disagree with the values, there will be an appeal period to file a written objection. Failure to write within the designated dates will forfeit your appeal rights for the 2001 tax year.
Clearly the letter placed James Island on notice that the prior “2000 appeal” would not be sufficient to challenge the 2001 tax year since a reassessment program would produce a new valuation for the properties for the 2001 tax year. Further, the letter plainly states that an appeal period would exist for the new valuations and that a “[f]ailure to write within the designated dates will forfeit your appeal rights for the 2001 tax year.”
By notices dated January 29, 2001, the Assessor provided the new valuations to the three previously identified properties. Not until July 26, 2002, did James Island ask the Assessor to examine the valuation of the three properties that are the subject of this matter.
B. Applicable Law
A hearing body always 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 18 (1963). In general, subject matter jurisdiction is met if the case is brought in the court which has the authority and power to determine the type of action at issue. See Dove v. Gold Kist, Inc., 314 S.C. 235, 442 S.E.2d 598 (1994).
However, even where the hearing body has the general authority and power to hear the type of action at issue, the General Assembly can choose to limit the general authority of the hearing body by imposing specific requirements needed to invoke the court's jurisdiction. See McDonald v. Womack, 293 S.C. 61, 358 S.E.2d 705 (1987) (motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), SCRCP granted where statute required the disputed tax to be paid under protest before the court had the authority to hear the matter.) Thus, while the ALJD has general subject matter jurisdiction over contested cases involving property tax (see Sec. 1‑23‑600 which places contested cases before the ALJD and Sec. 12‑60‑20(4) which defines contested case to include challenges of decisions from county boards of assessments), that jurisdiction is invoked only where the statutory requirements permitting the hearing of those cases is satisfied.
Satisfying the statutory requirements permitting the hearing is critical since a failure to satisfy the time‑to‑appeal requirements is fatal in that 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); Stroup v. Duke Power Co., 216 S.C. 79, 56 S.E.2d 745 (1949). See Lindsey v. South Carolina Tax Comm'n, 323 S.C. 57, 448 S.E.2d 577 (Ct. App. 1994) (in an appeal to a County Board, a timely appeal is required but may be met by serving the objection either in person or by mail).
In this case, the law in existence allowed a taxpayer thirty days after the assessor mails the property tax assessment notice in which to challenge the Assessor’s valuation. §12-60-2510(A)(3). The only exception to this requirement is that an extension of the time to challenge the valuation can be granted by county ordinance. See §12‑43‑300 (“The governing body of the county may by ordinance extend the time for filing an objection to the valuation and assessment of real property resulting from reassessment within a county.”). Here, Charleston County had granted an additional 30 days giving a total of 60 days in which to file a written challenge.
C. Application Of Law To Facts
James Island was notified that the prior request for review of its 2000 tax year would not accomplish a review of the 2001 tax year since a new reassessment had been completed on all Charleston County property. Thus, no valid existing request for review was on file with the Assessor. Indeed, James Island was expressly notified that if it disagreed with the 2001 valuations, it was required to file a written objection to the new reassessed values for the 2001 tax year. Further, such challenge was (with the extension granted by Charleston County) due within sixty days after the assessor’s mailing of the property tax assessment notices.
Here, the notices were mailed on January 29, 2001. The only request for review of the 2001 valuation was made on July 26, 2002 and received by the Assessor on July 29, 2002. Thus, given the sixty day appeal period, the appeal was late by several months and prevents the ALJD from hearing the taxpayer's challenge to the 2001 tax year.
IV. Order
The ALJD lacks jurisdiction to hear this matter and thus no relief can be afforded to James Island.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED
______________________
RAY N. STEVENS
Administrative Law Judge
Dated: April 14, 2003
Columbia, South Carolina
Although an issue of jurisdiction is essentially a question of law, if factual determinations are necessary to resolve the question of jurisdiction, the court may rely upon the facts placed before it. See Graham v. Lloyd's of London, 296 S.C. 249, 251, 371 S.E.2d 801, 802 n. 1 (Ct.App.1988) ("When the issue is the existence of jurisdiction in fact, the court is not confined to the allegations of the complaint, but may resort to affidavits or other evidence to determine its jurisdiction."). Here, documents submitted by the parties establish the facts needed for examination.
|
