ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This contested case is brought by James and Susan Barber (Petitioners) against the Richland County Assessor (Assessor)
concerning a property valuation for the 2000 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 by S.C. Code Ann. § 12-60-2540(A) (2000).
After notice to the parties, a hearing was conducted on February 20, 2002. Based on the evidence, I find that the proper
valuation of the property located at 20 Mahalo Lane, Columbia, South Carolina is $389,400 for the 2000 tax year.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Having carefully considered all testimony, exhibits, and arguments presented at the hearing of this matter, and taking into
account the credibility and accuracy of the evidence, I make the following Findings of Fact by a preponderance of the
evidence:
1. The Petitioners are the owners of real property at 20 Mahalo Lane, Columbia, South Carolina, which is the subject of
this contested case hearing. The subject property is situated in a neighborhood commonly known as Tanglewood.
2. The subject property is identified as Tax Map No. 13907-03-47 for tax purposes. The subject property was reassessed in
1999 as part of a mass appraisal.
3. The Assessor valued the subject property at $389,400 based on a square footage of 3,551. The Taxpayer appealed the
assessment to the Richland County Board of Assessment Appeals. The Board adjusted the square footage to 3,155 based on
the testimony that the area above the garage is unfinished space. However, the board found $389,400 still to be an accurate
assessment of value.
4. Petitioners contend that the value of their home is too high compared to other homes in the neighborhood. Petitioners
does not contend that the value of the subject property is inflated and actually believes the entire neighborhood is
undervalued. Specifically, Petitioners contend that the decrease in square footage should have reduced the assessment of
value.
5. After appeal, Mark Cheslak appraised the subject property on behalf of the Assessor's office. He did analyses based on
appraisals of similar properties, based on sales of similar properties and on a cost approach.
6. In determining the value under comparison to other assessments, he used three comparable properties. The Assessor
chose these comparables because he believed them to be similar in size, design, and age to the subject property, and
because they are in the same neighborhood as the subject property.
8. Assessor Comparable #1 was constructed in 1990 and is located at 26 Maholo Lane. Comparable #1 is 3,588 square feet
and has a garage and porch. The home has been assessed at a value of $300,900. This is a value per square foot of $83.86.
Assessor Comparable #2 was constructed in 1998 and is located at 50 Mahalo Lane. It is 3,685 square feet and has a
garage and porch. The home has been assessed at a value of $342,523. This is a value per square foot of $92.94.
Assessor Comparable #3 was also constructed in 1998 and is located at 35 Maholo Lane. It is 3,224 square feet. It has been
assessed at $295,500. This is a value per square foot of $91.66.
9. The Assessor's initial assessment would calculate to $85.00 per square foot. However, since the Board decreased the
square footage, but did not decrease the value, it calculates to $95.00 per square foot.
10. Other property owners in the Tanglewood neighborhood appealed their assessments. The Assessor's office concedes
there were no other cases where square footage was reduced but assessment value was not. However, Mr. Cheslak testified
that he was able to measure the other properties to verify the square footage reduction. The Petitioners have not been
willing to allow anyone from the Assessor's office to measure their home. The Assessor says he must verify the square
footage reduction before he would consider a reduction in valuation. Nevertheless, the Board believed the valuation was
still accurate even with a square footage reduction.
11. Mr. Cheslak also used the direct sales comparison approach to value the property. He used three sales comparisons:
Sale #1 was at 1654 Tanglewood Road. The home is 5,076 square feet and is in the same subdivision as the subject
property. It sold in April 1998 for a price of $550,000 which is $108.35 per square foot.
Sale #2 was at 32 Mahalo Lane. This home is 4,261 square feet and is in the same subdivision and on the same street as the
subject property. This home sold in October 1999 for $582,000 which is $136.58 per square foot.
Sale #3 was at 4001 Linwood Road. This home is 3,340 square feet and is in a nearby neighborhood. It is not modernized,
was in average condition at the time of sale and has no swimming pool. This home sold in August 1998 for $355,000 which
is $106.29 per square foot.
He decided Sales #1 & #2 should be considered more heavily since they are in the Petitioners' neighborhood. The home in
Sale #2 is also similar in age. Based on the sales, the appraiser determined $120.00 per square foot would be a fair estimate
of what the Petitioners' home would sell for if put on the market. I find this is correct. At 3,551 square feet this would be a
value of $426,120. At 3,155 square feet this would be a value of $378,600.
12. Mr. Cheslak also did a market analysis based on the cost approach. This approach
evaluates what the appraiser believes it would cost to purchase the property and build the home. Under this approach he
reached a value of $419,152.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The issue in dispute is the value of Petitioners' property located at 20 Mahalo Lane,
Columbia, South Carolina for taxation purposes. Land is unique, as no parcel is identical to another. Unlike commodities,
it 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. Further, 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).
S.C. Code Ann. § 12-37-930 (2000) provides:
All real property shall be valued for taxation at its true value in money which in all cases shall be held to be the price which
the property would bring following reasonable exposure to the market, where both the seller and buyer are willing, are not
acting under compulsion, and are reasonably well informed as to the uses and purposes of which it is adapted and for which
it is capable of being used.
Fair market value is the measure of true value for taxation purposes under this statute. Lindsey v. S.C. Tax Comm'n, 302
S.C. 504, 397 S.E.2d 95 (1990).
2. In order to determine a fair market price for Taxpayer's property, comparisons of the
sale price of other properties of the same character may be utilized. See Appraisal Institute, The Appraisal of Real Estate
367 (10th ed. 1992); 84 C.J.S. Taxation §§ 410-411 (1954). While it is impossible to predict with certainty what a
particular property will sell for, utilizing comparable sales is a good indicator of what a potential purchaser will likely pay,
and it provides probative evidence of the market value of the subject property, if the comparables are similar in character,
location, and physical characteristics. See 84 C.J.S. Taxation § 411 (1954).
In the instant case, the Assessor's selection of comparables in applying the market approach to valuation is a reliable
indicator of the fair market value of the Taxpayer's property. These comparables are similar to the subject in design,
location, age, and quality. Accordingly, a $120 per-square-foot valuation is reasonable for the subject property.
In valuing property, an assessor should take into consideration all relevant factors and
circumstances bearing on this determination that are within his knowledge or brought to his attention. 84 C.J.S. Taxation §
410 (1954). The assessor "should take into consideration all of [the land's] elements or incidents, such as location, . . .
quality, [and] condition . . . which affect market value or would influence the mind of a purchaser." 84 C.J.S. Taxation, §
411 (1954). "Each case of valuation must be determined according to the conditions existing at the time, and the property
to be assessed is to be taken and valued in the actual condition in which the owner holds it. . . ." 84 C.J.S. Taxation § 410
(1954).
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the valuation of $389,400 is valid.
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Assessor value Petitioners' property, located at 20 Mahalo Lane, Columbia, South
Carolina, for the 2000 tax year at $389,400.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________________________
CAROLYN C. MATTHEWS
Administrative Law Judge
This 20th day of May, 2002
Columbia, South Carolina
|
