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:
Owners of Players Club, et al vs. Beaufort County Assessor

AGENCY:
Beaufort County Assessor

PARTIES:
Petitioners:
Owners of Players Club, Port O'Call, Brigantine Quarters, Spinnaker, Adventure Inn, Sunset/Harbour Pointe, Monarch, Southwind, Spicebush, Heritage Club, Harbour Club, and Swallowtail

Respondents:
Beaufort County Assessor
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
95-ALJ-17-0226-CC

APPEARANCES:
n/a
 

ORDERS:

ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION

This matter is before me upon the requests by Petitioner and Respondent for reconsideration of the Division's Order dated November 1, 1996 (incorporated herein by reference). Both parties separately filed a Motion for Reconsideration.

The Petitioner seeks reconsideration of the Order citing the following issues as grounds for this tribunal to consider in order to reach a different conclusion in this case: 1) that the Assessor presented no independent evidence to demonstrate that the method of valuation of the single owner and the timeshare property was the same and presented no evidence to explain any disparity in the values; 2) that the finding of fact that there was a systematic overvaluation of the property reveals that the Assessor could not have used the same method of valuation of the properties; 3) that anydeviation between the values of the timeshare units and the single owner units requires the conclusion that S.C. Code Ann. § 27-32-240 was violated; and 4) that the Division erred in ruling that Player's Club is barred from seeking a refund for tax years 1986, 1987, 1988, and 1989. The Respondent seeks reconsideration of, among other things, specific findings of fact relating to the representative samples used to compare the timeshare values with the single owner values and to the specific conclusion that the evidence revealed, at best, that the timeshare units were systematically overvalued.

An "...agency's (or an ALJ's) power to rehear or reconsider a case is not an arbitrary one, and such power should be exercised only when there is justification and good cause; i.e., newly discovered evidence, fraud, surprise, mistake, inadvertence or change in conditions." Bennett v. City of Clemson, 293 S.C. 64, 358 S.E.2d 707 (1987). The motions for reconsideration simply repeat issues and facts raised during the hearing of this matter. No new law or facts have been cited to demonstrate that this tribunal overlooked any of the evidence presented in this case. Petitioners want to shift to the Respondent the burden of proving that a different methodology was not used in valuing the units.

The Petitioners have the burden of establishing that a different methodology was utilized. Their own expert could not determine what methodology was used and they failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Assessor's stated methodology was not utilized. As stated in the Order, "[a] mistake in valuation, including the overvaluation of the property, not amounting to an error of law is not sufficient to establish grounds for relief pursuant to Section 12-47-420." An error resulting in an excessive assessment is not the basis for a refund. American Hardware Supply v. Whitmire, 278 S.C. 607, 300 S.E.2d 289 (1983). At best, the Assessor committed an error in the original reassessment notices sent to the taxpayer which demonstrated a systematic overvaluation of the properties. Corrected notices or correct tax bills were sent to the taxpayers which reflected the correct value of the timeshare units.

The evidence clearly showed that based upon the representative units from each project, the original reassessment notice indicated a pattern in which the timeshare units were valued higher than the single owner units. This disparity shows a systematic overvaluation of the timeshare units. The corrected notices or the tax bills show that the values of the timeshare units were reduced. To the extent, this tribunal's Order failed to reflect that the systematic overvaluation was demonstrated based upon the original reassessment notices, it is so amended.

Petitioners argument regarding the applicable statute of limitations and the reasoning therefore were adequately addressed in this tribunal's Order. There have been no compelling reasons to revisit this issue.

Neither the Petitioners nor the Respondents has established the justification and good cause necessary for reconsideration to be granted. For the foregoing reasons, the motions for reconsideration are DENIED.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.







___________________________

ALISON RENEE LEE

Administrative Law Judge





December ______, 1996

Columbia, South Carolina.


Brown Bldg.

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2024 South Carolina Administrative Law Court