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:
Louis B. Fowler & Inez Glenn McL. Fowler vs. Richland County Assessor

AGENCY:
Richland County Assessor

PARTIES:
Petitioners:
Louis B. Fowler & Inez Glenn McL. Fowler

Respondents:
Richland County Assessor
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
00-ALJ-17-0186-CC

APPEARANCES:
For the Petitioner: Louis B. Fowler, Pro Se

For the Respondent: Robert H. Byrd, Deputy Assessor

Terrence Fancey, Appraisal Supervisor
 

ORDERS:

FINAL ORDER AND DECISION

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This contested case is brought by Louis B. Fowler and Inez Glenn McL. Fowler (Taxpayers) against the Richland County Assessor (Assessor) concerning property valuation for the 1999 tax year. The Taxpayers 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 920 Burwell Lane, Columbia, South Carolina is $220,800 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 Taxpayers are the owner of real property located at 920 Burwell Lane, Columbia, South Carolina, which is the subject of this contested case hearing.

3. The subject property is identified as Tax Map Number R13815-03-08 for tax purposes.

4. The Assessor orginally valued the property at $228,600. The Assessor adjusted that value to $223,400 after the Taxpayers requested a review of the appraisal. The Taxpayers appealed this assessment to the Richland County Board of Assessment Appeals. The Board determined that the value of the subject property should be further reduced to $220,800. The Board stated that its decision to lower the value of the property was based upon the evidence provided by the Taxpayer concerning the flooding of the subject property.

5. The Taxpayers had Russell & Jeffcoat do a market analysis on the subject property. Russell & Jeffcoat determined that the property should be valued at $185,000. In this market analysis, Russell & Jeffcoat looked for recent sales of similar properties to the subject property and made comparisons. However, Russell & Jeffcoat's comparables are not located on Burwell Lane and are not in the flood plain.

6. The Taxpayers contend that the value of the subject property should be further reduced to $178,000 because the lot is in the floodway and borders Gills Creek. The Taxpayers argue that Gills Creek regularly floods and, as a result, twenty (20) percent of their lot is rendered useless. Therefore, the Taxpayers believe that the value of the lot should be reduced by twenty percent. Russell & Jeffcoat appraised the lot for $35,000. A twenty percent reduction would bring the value of the lot to $28,000 and the total value of the building and the lot would be $178,000.

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 $210,771.

8. In determining the value under the sales comparison approach, the Assessor used four comparable properties.

9. Comparable #1 is located at 848 Burwell Lane. Comparable #1 has a house with 1646 square feet, and it is located in the Gills Creek floodway and borders Gills Creek. This comparable sold in March 1999 for $126,888 ($77.09 per sq. ft). The Assessor points out in the appraisal that this sale occurred three months after the assessment date but if this sales price is discounted back to the assessment date by as much as 5%, it would have a value of $73.23 per square foot.

10. Comparable #2 is located at 849 Burwell Lane. This comparable has a house with 1797 square feet, and it is located in the Gills Creek floodplain. This comparable is located across the street from the subject property so it is in the Gills Creek floodplain but not the floodway. This comparable sold in September 1998 for $128,500 ($71.51 per sq. ft.).

11. Comparable #3 is located at 839 Burwell Lane. This comparable has a house with 1840 square feet and is located in the Gills Creek floodplain. This comparable sold in June 1998 for $148,000 ($80.43 per sq. ft.).

12. Comparable #4 is located at 4808 Datura Road. This comparable has a house with 2064 square feet and is located in the Gills Creek floodplain. This comparable sold in January 1998 for $155,000 ($75.10 per sq. ft.).

13. The Assessor used these comparables to arrive at a range of value for the subject property from $70.00 per square foot to $75.00 per square foot or $250,460 to $268,350.

14. Next, the Assessor determined that the sales comparison approach was the best method for estimating the value of the subject property. The Assessor explained 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 $223,400 ($62.44 per sq. ft.) is well supported by the sales comparison approach range of values of $250,460 to $268,350.

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 Taxpayers argue that the value of their land should be reduced because the subject property is located in the floodway of Gills Creek. The Taxpayers argue that Gills Creek floods regularly and renders twenty percent of their lot useless. The Taxpayers contend that they would not be able to sell their home at the assessed value because they must disclose these flooding problems to potential buyers. Furthermore, the Taxpayers argue that based upon the market analysis done by Russell & Jeffcoat, the value of the subject property should be reduced.

7. However, the Taxpayers did not meet their burden of proving that the Assessor's valuation is incorrect. Russell & Jeffcoat valued the Taxpayers' lot at $35,000. The Taxpayers argue that this value should be reduced by twenty percent because twenty percent of their lot is regularly flooded and, therefore, useless. A twenty percent reduction would bring the value of the lot to $28,000. However, according to the decision by the Board and the Assessor's appraisal, the value of the lot has been reduced and the current value is $27,200. Furthermore, the Russell & Jeffcoat market analysis did not use comparables located on Burwell Lane or in a floodplain or floodway.

8. In valuing the subject property, it appears that the Assessor took into account the property's location on Gills Creek and the fact that the land floods regularly. The Assessor used comparables that are located on Burwell Lane and are in the floodplain or the floodway. Therefore, I find that $220,800 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 920 Burwell Lane, Columbia, South Carolina, be valued at $220,800 ($61.71 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


Brown Bldg.

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2024 South Carolina Administrative Law Court