ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
I. Introduction
Joseph and Mary Boland (Taxpayers) seek to challenge the valuation that the Horry County Assessor
(Assessor) placed on several lots located in Horry County for tax years 2001 and 2002. While the
tax disputes came to the Administrative Law Judge Division (ALJD) as two separate cases, since the
cases arise from common facts and since the issues in each are similar, the cases were consolidated
and heard together on July 17, 2003.
Before the hearing on the merits began, the Assessor made a Motion to Dismiss arguing that no
jurisdiction over the current matter existed in the ALJD. For tax year 2001, the Assessor argued that
the Taxpayers did not timely challenge the Assessor’s valuation before the Horry County Board of
Assessment Appeals (Board). For tax year 2002, the Assessor asserts that while the Taxpayers timely
challenged the Assessor’s value before the Board, Taxpayers failed to seek a contested case before
the ALJD in the time period allowed.
No decision was made at the time the motion was argued but instead the matter was taken under
advisement. Having now examined the positions of the parties, I am compelled by existing law to find
that no jurisdiction exists and that the challenges filed by the Taxpayers must be dismissed.
II. Analysis
The issue here is whether Taxpayers have taken the necessary steps to invoke the jurisdiction of the
ALJD. Under the existing law, they have not.
A. Applicable Facts
In late 2000, Taxpayers acquired several lots in a development known as Tidewater Plantation in
North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina with the properties identified by the county as Tax Map
Numbers 131-30-01-079 and 131-30-01-086. Upon learning of the tax values placed on the
properties by the Assessor for tax year 2001, Taxpayers asked the Assessor to review the decision.
After his review, the Assessor in letters date August 5, 2001 and September 11, 2001 notified
Taxpayers that the values would not be changed. In denying any relief, the notice stated the
following:
You have the right to appeal this decision to the Horry County Board of Assessment
Appeals, 801 Main St., Conway, SC 29526. Your appeal must be in writing and
submitted within thirty days from the date of this letter.
No appeal was made by Taxpayers within the thirty day time period.
For the tax year 2002, Taxpayers again obtained a review of their properties by the Assessor. Again,
they failed to obtain a satisfactory change in value. However, unlike the 2001 tax year, Taxpayers
for the 2002 tax year obtained a hearing before the Horry County Board of Assessment Appeals
challenging the Assessor’s values.
The Board heard the dispute on October 17, 2002 and issued its decision to Taxpayers in a letter
dated October 23, 2002. The decision held the following:
The Board voted to give you sixty (60) days to get a corrected deed filed. If a
corrected deed is not filed within the sixty days the Board will uphold the county’s
decision. This decision was made due to the evidence you presented at your hearing.
Within thirty (30) days after the Board’s decision, you may appeal the decision issued
by requesting a contested case hearing before the Administrative Law Judge Division.
No corrected deeds were submitted by Taxpayers to the Board by the end of the sixty days.
Therefore, the Board’s decision upheld the Assessor’s values and became a final decision on
December 23, 2002 (the 60th day having fallen on December 22, 2002, a Sunday, the last day for
submitting the corrected deed was carried over to the next business day of Monday, December 23,
2002). The Taxpayers’ letter of appeal dated February 27, 2003 was contained in an envelope
bearing a post marked date of March 11, 2003.
B. Applicable Law Applied to Facts
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 that general authority 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 §1-23-600 which places contested cases
before the ALJD and §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 authority
permitting the hearing of those cases is satisfied.
Here, the assessor argues the ALJD's jurisdiction cannot be invoked for the 2001 and 2002 tax years
since that jurisdiction is statutorily limited by specific time frames which Taxpayers fail to satisfy. In
particular, the Assessor argues that for the 2001 tax year Taxpayers failed to timely seek review
before the Board as required by §12-60-2530(A) and that for tax year 2002,Taxpayers failed to timely
seek review before the ALJD as required by §12-60-2540(A).
1. Tax Year 2001
For the tax year 2001, in letters dated August 5, 2001 and September 11, 2001, the Assessor denied
Taxpayers any relief from valuation and notified Taxpayers of their right to challenge his decision by
seeking a review before the Board within thirty days. No request for a review was filed for the 2001
tax year.
To obtain relief from an Assessor’s valuation, the applicable statute grants the taxpayer thirty days
within which to seek a review before the local county appeals board. See §12-60-2530(A) (“Within
thirty days after the date of the county assessor's response” the taxpayer may appeal to the Board).
In particular, the statute authorizes the Board to hear “timely” appeals. Id. (“The board may rule
on any timely appeal.”). Here no timely appeal was made.
A failure to satisfy the time-to-challenge requirements is fatal since an untimely challenge 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). Thus, the late challenge by Taxpayers prevents the ALJD from
hearing this matter and requires dismissal.
2. Tax Year 2002
For tax year 2002, Taxpayers received a review from the Board. The Board allowed Taxpayers sixty
days from October 23, 2002 in which to submit requested information and, if not submitted, the
Board explained that the Assessor’s values would be upheld. Since Taxpayers did not submit the
requested information, the Board’s decision became final on December 23, 2002 (the 60th day having
fallen on December 22, 2002, a Sunday, the last day for submitting the corrected deed was carried
over to the next business day of Monday, December 23, 2002).
Given December 23, 2002, as the date of the Board’s decision, Taxpayers had until January 22, 2003
(thirty days after the Board’s decision) in which to seek a contested case before the ALJD. S.C.
Code of Laws, Ann. §12-60-2540(A) (“Within thirty days after the date of the board's written
decision, a property taxpayer or county assessor may appeal a property tax assessment made by the
board by requesting a contested case hearing before the Administrative Law Judge Division in
accordance with the rules of the Administrative Law Judge Division.”). The Taxpayers’ letter of
appeal to the ALJD dated February 27, 2003 was contained in an envelope bearing a post marked
date of March 11, 2003. Accordingly, the request was untimely.
Again, just as with the 2001 tax year, the failure to satisfy the time-to-challenge requirements in the
2002 tax year prohibits the ALJ 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). Accordingly, the Taxpayers’ 2002 challenge must
also be dismissed.
III. Order
Accordingly, based on all the above, the challenge to the Assessor’s valuations for tax year 2001 and
tax year 2002 brought by Joseph and Mary Boland must be dismissed due to lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. Thus, the Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and this matter is ended.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED
______________________
RAY N. STEVENS
Administrative Law Judge
Dated: July 24, 2003
Columbia, South Carolina |
