ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This contested case is brought by Leila Miriam Carroll (Petitioner) against the Horry County Assessor (Assessor)
concerning a denial of a refund of taxes and penalties on property. The Taxpayer exhausted all prehearing remedies with the
Assessor and the Horry County Board of Assessment Appeals (Board). Jurisdiction is granted to the Administrative Law
Judge Division by S.C. Code Ann. § 12-60-2540(A) (2001).
After notice to the parties, a hearing was conducted on April 16, 2002. Based on the evidence, I find that the decision of
the Assessor was proper.
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. Eunice Pauline Dew Carroll, mother of the Petitioner, owned a parcel of land which
was part of a larger tract. Her brothers owned the remaining parcels. Eunice Carroll's parcel was identified as TMS #148-00-04-006. In 1984 Eunice Carroll's brothers, Ishmel and Foley, deeded their interest in the tract to Eunice Carroll. In 1991
the Petitioner received one-half of her mother's parcel. Petitioner's sister received the other half. The Petitioner's property
bears tax map number TMS #148-00-05-085.
2. The complicating issue arose on February 3, 1981, when Bobby L. and Frances L.
Martin executed a deed for a parcel of land containing 0.98 acres. That deed was recorded in Deed Book 702 at Page 13
with grantees being as follows: Ishmel Roscoe Dew, Foley Odell Dew, and Eunice Pauline Dew Carroll, their heirs and
assigns, after first excepting and reserving a life estate unto Leila Maria Williams Dew. Both Eunice Carroll and Leila
Maria Williams Dew have since died. Presently, the Respondent contends the ownership of that 0.98 acre is: 1/3 undivided
interest to Ishmel Roscoe Dew heirs-at-law, 1/3 undivided interest to Foley Odell Dew and 1/3 undivided interest to Leila
Miriam Carroll and Judy C. Johnson as heirs of Eunice Pauline Dew Carroll. According to the Petitioner, this was actually
a one-acre swap of property. The one acre received in this transfer is identified as TMS #148-00-05-082.
3. In 1984 the uncles deeded their interest in TMS #148-00-04-006 to their sister,
Eunice Carroll. The one acre had been made a separate tax map number and it did not transfer. Therefore, according to the
county, the legal owners of the one acre at TMS #148-00-05-082 are Ishmel Roscoe Dew, Foley Odell Dew and the two
daughters of Eunice Carroll, one of whom is the Petitioner.
4. The Petitioner is now before this Division seeking a decision as to the ownership of
TMS #148-00-05-082. She also seeks to have the property classified at the agricultural rate.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based upon the above findings of fact, I conclude the following as a matter of law:
1. The remedy sought by Petitioner stems could only come after a decision that she is
sole owner of TMS #148-00-05-082. Any ruling as to tax assessment could occur only after a correction of the alleged
problem with the recording of the owners of Tax Map No. 148-00-05-082. In effect, this would be an action and decision to
quiet title on the one acre. An action to quiet title is an action in equity. See Godfrey v. Webb, 277 S.C. 246, 285 S.E.2d
883 (1982) (ruling suit to set aside a tax deed is in equity); Bryan v.Freeman, 253 S.C. 50, 168 S.E.2d 793 (1969) (holding
an action to quiet title is equitable in nature).
2. An equitable remedy such as this is not within the jurisdiction of this Division.
"...[T]his tribunal does not have jurisdiction to grant relief to an action in equity, ...." Rhett and Ann Dobbins, et al. vs.
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control and Michael Pruitt, 96-ALJ-07-0383-CC ( June 3, 1997).
Because Petitioner's contentions center on the title to the one acre tract of swapped land, a court of equity is the proper
forum to adjudicate such a cause of action.
3. Accordingly, this Division's consideration of Petitioner's opposition to the Assessor's
findings is limited to the issues of assessment and taxation based on that assessment. It is beyond the jurisdictional scope of
this Division to quiet title on a parcel of property. The Division has jurisdiction through South Carolina Code Ann. §12-60-2540 (A) as follows, "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." Until an
equitable action is undertaken and the title quieted, the tax assessment is proper.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case shall be dismissed.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
_______________________________
CAROLYN C. MATTHEWS
Administrative Law Judge
October 3, 2002
Columbia, South Carolina |
