ORDERS:
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
STATEMENT
OF THE CASE
In
the above-captioned matter, Petitioner Eleanor Condon Ilderton seeks to
challenge the assessed value of her property, which is located on Atlantic
Avenue, in Charleston County, South Carolina, identified as Tax Map Number 523-12-00-015,
by Respondent Charleston County Assessor (Assessor) for tax year 2005. In his
Preliminary Tax Appeal Statement, the Assessor contends that Petitioner's
challenge to the 2005 tax assessment of her property was not timely. The
Assessor contends Petitioner failed to timely provide the Assessor with written
notice of objection to the assessment. Accordingly, a hearing on the issue of
the timeliness of Petitioner’s written notice of objection to the assessment
was held on August 10, 2006.
Based
upon the arguments and evidence presented at that hearing, I find that
Petitioner failed to timely file a written notice of objection to the
assessment. As a result, I further find that Petitioner failed to exhaust her
administrative remedies with Charleston County before bringing this contested
case and that this case must, therefore, be dismissed.
BACKGROUND
By
notice of assessment dated and mailed June 14, 2005, the Assessor assessed the
value of the property at issue in this matter. On the notice of assessment
appears the language, “If you disagree with the Appraisal & Assessment, you
must file written objection with the assessor on/or before 09/12/2005.”
Petitioner filed a written objection to the assessment with the Assessor which
was dated September 29, 2005 and stamped received by the Charleston County
Assessor’s Office on October 3, 2005. By letter dated November 10, 2005, D.
Michael Huggins, Charleston County Assessor, informed Petitioner that “the
legal time for requesting a review of the valuation and assessment of the
property for tax year 2005 has expired.” Petitioner filed an appeal of the assessment
with the Charleston County Board of Assessment Appeals (Board) on November 18,
2005.
In
the November 18, 2005 letter, Petitioner claims she received the tax bill
without ever receiving a notice of the assessment. However, Petitioner
admitted at the hearing that it was possible that the notice of assessment
could have been misplaced or inadvertently thrown out.
Because
Petitioner's written objection to the assessment was not timely filed with the
assessor, the Board dismissed Petitioner's appeal by a letter dated January 17,
2006. Petitioner then filed a request for a contested case to challenge the
assessed value of the subject property with this Court on January 27, 2006.
DISCUSSION
For
the reasons set forth below, Petitioner's case must be dismissed because of her
failure to exhaust her administrative remedies with Charleston County before
requesting a contested case before this Court.
The
doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies generally requires a person
seeking relief from the action of an administrative agency to pursue all
available administrative remedies before seeking such relief from the courts. See, e.g., Pullman Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 234 S.C. 365, 108 S.E.2d
571 (1959); see generally Richard H. Seamon, Administrative
Agencies—General Concepts and Principles, in South Carolina Administrative
Practice and Procedure 1, 83-96 (Randolph R. Lowell & Stephen P. Bates
eds. 2004). However, as recognized in the South Carolina Revenue Procedures
Act, this exhaustion principle applies not only when a party is seeking
judicial review of an agency action, but also when a party is seeking review of
an agency action before another administrative agency, such as the South
Carolina Administrative Law Court (ALC). See S.C. Code Ann. §
12-60-30(14)-(15) (Supp. 2005) (defining both the exhaustion of administrative
remedies that is required before judicial review of a tax matter may be had and
the exhaustion of agency remedies that is required before a party may seek
contested case review of a tax matter by the ALC).
Where
a party has sought relief from the courts or another agency after entirely
forgoing its remedies before the initiating agency, a dismissal by the
reviewing court or agency for failure to exhaust administrative remedies may
completely preclude review by the court or agency because the party's
opportunity to cure its failure to exhaust its remedies before the initiating
agency has expired. See, e.g., Meredith v. Elliott, 247
S.C. 335, 346-47, 147 S.E.2d 244, 249 (1966) ("Having failed to follow the
administrative remedy created by the statute for the correction of errors in
the valuation of their property, [taxpayers] are precluded from resorting to
the courts for relief."); Lominick v. City of Aiken, 244 S.C. 32,
44, 135 S.E.2d 305, 310 (1964) ("It was incumbent upon [the challenging
party]... to appeal to the Zoning Board of Adjustment from the decision of the
Building Inspector if [she]... considered his decision erroneous.... Not having
done so, she cannot now attack the validity of his decision."); see also Brackenbrook North Charleston, LP v. County of Charleston,
360 S.C. 390, 399-400, 602 S.E.2d 39, 44-45 (2004) (finding that a refund suit
filed by taxpayers who had pending administrative refund cases should simply be
dismissed without prejudice to require the taxpayers to exhaust their
administrative remedies under the Revenue Procedures Act, but further crafting
a special administrative remedy for those taxpayers who had forgone their
administrative remedies in reliance upon orders issued in the judicial action
and who would ordinarily be precluded from pursuing those administrative
remedies).
“In
years when there is a notice of property tax assessment, the property taxpayer,
within ninety days after the assessor mails the property tax assessment notice,
must give the assessor written notice of objection to one or more of the following:
the fair market value, the special use value, the assessment ration, and the
property tax assessment.” S.C. Code Ann. § 12-60-2510 (Supp. 2005). In this
case, the notice of property tax assessment was mailed on June 14, 2005.
The ninety day deadline for the taxpayer to provide written notice of objection
to the assessor, September 12, 2005, was clearly printed on the notice. Petitioner’s
written notice of objection was dated September 29, 2005 and stamped received
by the Charleston County Assessor’s Office on October 3, 2005. Therefore,
Petitioner’s written notice of objection was not timely filed.
By
failing to timely file a written objection to her assessment with the
Charleston County Assessor, Petitioner failed to exhaust her administrative
remedies with Charleston County before requesting a contested case before this
Court, and thus this matter shall be dismissed on that ground. Also,
Petitioner completely forfeited those remedies before the County, such that the
dismissal of this case acts as a bar to further proceedings on the challenged
assessment, both before the County and before this Court. Therefore, for the
reasons set forth above,
IT
IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above-captioned case is DISMISSED because
of Petitioner's failure to exhaust her administrative remedies with Charleston
County prior to requesting this contested case proceeding.
AND
IT IS SO ORDERED.
__________________________________
JOHN D. MCLEOD
Administrative
Law Judge
September 11, 2006
Columbia, South Carolina
|
