ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This case comes before this tribunal pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 12-60-2540 (2000) and S.C. Code Ann. §§ 1-23-310 et
seq. (1986 & Supp. 2001) for a contested case hearing. Petitioner Kiawah Ocean, Inc. (Kiawah) seeks review of the
Charleston County Assessor's (Assessor) determination that it failed to timely file its objection to the 2002 assessed value
of its property at 91 Bass Creek Lane on Kiawah Island, South Carolina.
STIPULATION
At the hearing of this matter, the parties stipulated that there are no genuine issues of material fact in controversy in this
case, and that the sole issue of whether Petitioner timely filed an objection to the 2002 assessment of its property can be
decided as matter of law. As such, the parties stipulated to the facts as recited by counsel in the record at the hearing and as
contained in the documents submitted by the parties.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based upon the recitation of the facts offered by counsel at the hearing of this matter and upon the exhibits proffered, I
make the following Findings of Fact by a preponderance of the evidence:
1. Petitioner Kiawah owns the property located at 91 Bass Creek Lane on Kiawah Island in Charleston County, South
Carolina, otherwise known by the parcel identification number (PID) 265-15-00-030.
2. On January 29, 2001, as part of a countywide equalization of assessments, Respondent Charleston County Assessor
appraised Petitioner's unimproved property at $2,352,000. The notice of this assessment informed Petitioner that, if
Petitioner disagreed with the appraisal and assessment, it "must file written objection with the assessor by 03/30/2001."
Resp't Ex. #1. Petitioner did not file an objection to the appraisal and assessment by that date.
3. On August 10, 2001, because of the completion of a residence on Petitioner's property, the Assessor reappraised the
property, arriving at the value of $3,668,000. The notice of this re-assessment informed Petitioner that, if it disagreed with
the appraisal and assessment, it "must file written objection with the assessor by 09/10/2001." Resp't Ex. #2. Petitioner
did not file an objection to the re-appraisal and re-assessment by that date.
4. Based upon that appraisal and assessment, the Assessor billed Petitioner $40,246.26 on September 28, 2001, for the 2001
taxes on the property.
5. On January 11, 2002, Petitioner, through its counsel, The Bogatin Law Firm in Memphis, Tennessee, submitted payment
of the 2001 taxes to the Charleston County Treasurer. A letter accompanying the payment stated, in part:
This firm is counsel to Kiawah Ocean, Inc. As such counsel, we enclose herewith our client's check #1041 in the amount
of $40,246.26 representing payment due January 15, 2002 of Real Property Taxes for 2001. Please be advised that our
client is remitting this payment under protest and that an appeal on the assessed value of the property will be filed on the
grounds that it does not reflect the fair market value.
Pet'r Ex. #1 (emphasis added). However, no such appeal was ever filed by The Bogatin Law Firm on behalf of Petitioner.
6. Unlike 2001, in which the Assessor undertook a countywide reassessment of property values, 2002 was not a
reassessment year and thus the Assessor did not mail notice of the assessed value of properties in the county to taxpayers
for 2002. (1) Consequently, Petitioner did not receive notice of the assessed value of its property for 2002.
7. By letter dated March 27, 2002, Petitioner's new counsel, Gray B. Taylor of Buist & Byars of Charleston, South
Carolina, notified the Assessor that Petitioner intended to appeal the 2002 assessment of its property and provided the
Assessor with a copy of the January 11, 2002 letter from The Bogatin Law Firm to the Charleston County Treasurer as
evidence that Petitioner had timely filed its objection. This March 27, 2002 letter, which the Assessor received on March
28, 2002, was the first notice the Assessor had of Petitioner's intent to appeal the 2002 valuation of its property. Because
the Assessor received this notice of appeal after March 1, 2002, the Assessor determined that Petitioner's appeal of its 2002
assessment was untimely, and instead accepted the March 27, 2002 letter as a written request for review of Petitioner's
2003 assessment. The Charleston County Board of Assessment Appeals upheld the Assessor's decision, and Petitioner
now challenges the Assessor's determination before this tribunal.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
S.C. Code Ann. § 12-60-2510 (2000 & Supp. 2001) is dispositive of the instant case. That section provides, in relevant
part:
In years when there is no notice of property tax assessment, the property taxpayer must, by March first, give the assessor
written notice of objection to one or more of the following: the fair market value, the special use value, the assessment
ratio, and the property tax assessment. The failure to serve written notice of objection by March first is a waiver of the
taxpayer's right of protest for that tax year, and the assessor may not review any request filed after March first.
S.C. Code Ann. § 12-60-2510(A)(4) (2000) (emphasis added). As noted above, see Finding of Fact #6, 2002 was a "no
notice" year for property tax assessments in Charleston County. Therefore, under the plain terms of Section 12-60-2510(A)(4), if Petitioner desired to appeal the 2002 assessment its property, it was required to give written notice of its
objection to the Assessor by March 1, 2002. And, if Petitioner failed to give such notice to the Assessor by March 1, 2002,
Petitioner would be deemed to have waived its right to protest the 2002 assessment of its property, and the Assessor would
be precluded from reviewing any requests for review filed after March 1.
In the case at hand, Petitioner failed to comply with the March 1, 2002 deadline for filing an appeal of the 2002 assessment
of its property. Petitioner's March 27, 2002 letter stating its intent to appeal the 2002 assessment was not received by the
Assessor until March 28, 2002, some twenty-seven days after the March 1 deadline. Moreover, the January 11, 2002 letter
from The Bogatin Law Firm to the Charleston County Treasurer, even if construed as a written objection to the 2002
assessment, (2) simply failed to satisfy the requirements of Section 12-60-2510(A)(4), as it was specifically sent to the
Charleston County Treasurer, not the Charleston County Assessor, who only received notice of the letter when a copy was
attached to Petitioner's March 27, 2002 correspondence. Under the plain terms of Section 12-60-2510(A)(4), Petitioner's
failure to deliver the January 11 letter, or any other valid objection to the 2002 assessment, (3) to the Assessor by March 1,
2002, constituted a waiver of Petitioner's right to challenge the 2002 assessed value of its property and precluded the
Assessor from entertaining any such challenge filed after March 1, 2002, including Petitioner's March 27, 2002 attempt to
resurrect the January 11 letter.
ORDER
For the reasons set forth above,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Charleston County Assessor's determination that Petitioner's appeal of the 2002
assessment of the property in question was untimely is SUSTAINED.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________
JOHN D. GEATHERS
Administrative Law Judge
November 8, 2002
Columbia, South Carolina
1. Unless adjusted because of changes in the property or a successful appeal of a valuation, the reassessment valuations
determined by the Assessor in 2001 would "be effective for future taxes until the next reassessment in 2005." Resp't Ex.
#1. As the assessed value of properties would remain constant between 2001 and 2002, except as noted above, the
Assessor did not provide taxpayers in 2002 with redundant notices of the valuation reached in the 2001 assessment.
2. The January 11 letter suffers from several defects that raise real questions as to whether the letter should be construed as
an objection to the 2002 assessment. For example, the letter was sent to the Treasurer, who merely collects property taxes,
and not the Assessor, who actually makes property tax assessments and considers objections to those assessments; the letter
only directly refers to the 2001 assessment and 2001 taxes, and not the 2002 assessment; and, the letter specifically states
that "an appeal on the assessed value of the property will be filed," and not that the letter itself constitutes the appeal. Pet'r
Ex. #1 (emphasis added).
3. See, e.g., S.C. Code Ann. § 12-60-2520(A) (2000) (providing that a written request to meet with an assessor can
constitute a valid notice of objection to an assessment). |
