ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This contested case is brought by Violet Geiger (Taxpayer) against the Richland County Assessor (Assessor) concerning
property valuation for the 1999 tax year. The Taxpayer exhausted all prehearing remedies with the Assessor and the
Richland County Board of Assessment Appeals (Board). Jurisdiction is granted to the Administrative Law Judge Division
(ALJD) by S.C. Code Ann. § 12-60-2540(A)(2000) and S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-600 (Supp. 1999). After notice to all
parties, a hearing was conducted on October 2, 2000 at the ALJD in Columbia, South Carolina. Based on the evidence, I
find that the proper valuation of the property located at 4305 Willingham Drive, Columbia, South Carolina is $106,600 for
the 1999 tax year.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Having carefully considered the testimony and the arguments of both sides, and taking into account the credibility of the
evidence and witnesses, I find the following by a preponderance of the evidence:
1. Notice of the time, date, place and subject matter of the hearing was given to all parties in a timely manner.
2. The Taxpayer is the owner of real property located at 4305 Willingham Drive, Columbia, South Carolina, which is the
subject of this contested case hearing. The subject property is located within the City of Forest Acres.
3. The subject property is identified as Tax Map Number R14015-02-02 for tax purposes.
4. The Assessor valued the subject property at $106,600 for the 1999 tax year. The Taxpayer appealed this assessment to
the Richland County Board of Assessment Appeals. The Board affirmed the Assessor's valuation.
5. The Taxpayer argues that the value of the subject property should be between $75,000 and $78,000 because the house
needs a number of major repairs. The Taxpayer stated that the heating and air conditioning system does not work properly,
the duct work and insulation needs repairing, and the porch floods during rainstorms. Furthermore, the Taxpayer stated
that the valuation of the subject property should be reduced because her insurance company only values the property at
$90,000.
6. The Assessor appraised the subject property using the sales comparison approach and the cost approach.
7. Under the cost approach, the Assessor utilized Marshall & Swift and determined the value of the subject property to be
$102,807.
8. In determining the value under the sales comparison approach, the Assessor used three comparable properties
9. Comparable #1 is located at 4406 Willingham Drive. This comparable has a house with 1846 square feet. Comparable
#1 sold in April 1999 for $146,000 ($79.08 per sq. ft.).
10. Comparable #2 is located at 4316 Willingham Drive. This comparable has a house with 1577 square feet. Comparable
#2 sold in November 1997 for $117,000 ($74.10 per sq. ft.).
11. Comparable #3 is located at 4301 Willingham Drive. This comparable has a house with 1788 square feet and is located
next door to the subject property. Comparable #3 sold in May 1997 for $127,500 ($71.30 per sq. ft.).
12. The Assessor used these comparables to arrive at a value of $113,000 ($73.00 per sq. ft.) for the subject property.
13. Next, the Assessor determined that the sales comparison approach was the best method for estimating the value of the
subject property because the comparables used are similar to the subject property in almost every respect and are within
sight of the subject property. The Assessor explained that the difference in value between the cost approach and the sales
comparison approach could be attributed to the impact of the market for this area and the market driven appreciation is
greater than the physical/functional depreciation over time. Therefore, the Assessor contends that the 1998 estimate of fair
market value of $106,600 ($68.86 per sq. ft.) is a fair appraisal considering the value of $113,000 under the sales
comparison approach.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, I conclude the following as a matter of law:
1. The ALJD has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 12-60-2540(A) (2000) and S.C.
Code Ann. § 1-23-600 (Supp. 1999).
2. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-37-930 (Supp. 1999) provides:
All property must be valued for taxation at its true value in money which in all cases is the price which the property would
bring following reasonable exposure to the market, where both the seller and the buyer are willing, are not acting under
compulsion, and are reasonably well informed of the uses and purposes for which it is adapted and for which it is capable
of being used.
3. Fair market value is the measure of true value for taxation purposes under S.C. Code Ann. § 12-37-930. Lindsey v.
South Carolina Tax Com'n, 302 S.C. 504, 397 S.E.2d 95 (1990).
4. Unlike commodities, land does not have a fixed market price at a given period, and its value is determined by the
estimate of the person who values it. 84 C.J.S. Taxation § 411 at 793 (1954). "Generally , the proper valuation of realty
for taxation is a question of fact, to be ascertained in each individual case in the manner prescribed by statute." Id.
5. The Taxpayer has the burden of showing that the Assessor's valuation is incorrect. Cloyd v. Mabry, 295 S.C. 86, 367
S.E.2d 171 (Ct. App. 1988).
6. In the instant case, the Taxpayer did not meet her burden of proving that the Assessor's valuation is incorrect. From the
evidence presented by the Assessor, it appears that the value of the subject property is in line with the assessed values of
other homes in that neighborhood. The Taxpayer did not present evidence that refuted the Assessor's valuation. The
Taxpayer only stated that she felt the value of the property should be between $75,000 and $78,000 because the house
needs repair work. Also, the Taxpayer felt the value should be reduced because her insurance company values the house at
$90,000. However, the insurance company's valuation of the property only includes the house and not the lot. The lot is
valued by the Assessor at $21,311. If the insurance company's valuation of the house is added to the Assessor's valuation
of the lot, the total value of the property would be $111,311, which is more than the Assessor's total valuation of the
subject property. Furthermore, in valuing the subject property, it appears that the Assessor took into account the needed
repairs. Therefore, I find that $106,600 is a reasonable valuation for this property.
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Taxpayers' property, located at 4305 Willingham Drive, Columbia, South
Carolina, be valued at $106,600 ($68.86 per square foot) for the 1999 tax year.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
___________________________________
C. Dukes Scott
Administrative Law Judge
November 30, 2000
Columbia, South Carolina |
