SC Administrative Law Court Decisions

This matter comes before me upon the request of Petitioner pursuant to 27 S.C. Code Regs. 117.4 appealing the decision of the Charleston County Board of Assessment Appeals ("Board") for PID # 93/418-10-000-059 in which the Board valued the property at $13,700 for tax year 1993. After notice to the parties, a hearing was conducted on September 8, 1995.

The parties stipulated to submitting the case based upon the record made before the Board. Additional evidence was presented pursuant to an Order of this Division dated August 24, 1995. That evidence consisted of statements, photographs and a police incident report. I conclude that the property has been valued pursuant to its fair market value which is $13,700 and the decision of the Charleston County Board of Assessment Appeals is affirmed.

The taxpayer argues that the value of the lot as expressed by the assessor is too high for several reasons. These are: that the lot is located on an "S" curve which causes traffic problems; the drainage ditch in front of the property devalues the property; and on the undeveloped property behind the subject property a low cost housing development will be constructed. The reasons asserted by the taxpayer are unpersuasive to warrant an adjustment in the value of the property.

The property is located on a bend in the road which the taxpayer says causes serious traffic problems. The posted speed limit is 30 miles per hour. A car travelling at an excessive rate of speed cannot negotiate the turn without significant problems. On numerous occasions automobiles have run into the drainage ditch in front of the property because the road changes direction so abruptly. The assessor indicates that at least one of the properties used for comparison is also located on a curve similar to the taxpayer's property and it sold for $20,000. In the assessor's view, the property is marketable and its location does not warrant a decrease in value because of the curve.

Next, the taxpayer argues that the drainage ditch poses a number of problems that detract from the value of the lot. The ditch does not provide adequate drainage which causes water to collect on the lot especially during heavy rains; there is not adequate ingress and egress from the property; and the ditch is difficult to keep free of weeds, grass and debris. The assessor responds by showing that the other lots in the neighborhood also have the drainage ditch in front of them. These properties have adequate ingress and egress through the driveways constructed over the ditch. In addition, the drainage problems on the lot can be solved by the use of fill dirt or other alternatives accomplished during construction. The county or state highway department mows the ditch at least twice a year. Other homeowners must also keep the ditch clear. The existence of the ditch is not a unique feature of the property requiring a change in its value.

The taxpayer argues that the property should be decreased in value because of the low cost housing which is to be built on the undeveloped site behind the subject property. The property has not been developed and its planned use has not been determined. Future values which are merely possible, conjectural, or speculative, and are not reflected in present market value, are not to be considered. 48 C.J.S. Taxation §411 (1954). The planned development of the site referred to by the taxpayer is speculative. Any impact on the taxpayer's property is also speculative and conjectural. The assessor acted properly in disregarding this information. The remaining claims by the taxpayer have been considered and are without merit.

Based upon the transcript of testimony before the Charleston County Board of Assessment Appeals and evidence presented, and taking into account the burden on the parties to establish their respective cases by a preponderance of the evidence, I make the following findings of fact:

1. The subject property, identified as Charleston County TMS # 418-10-000-059, was purchased by the taxpayer in 1985 for $5000. It is located on Avondale Avenue in Avondale subdivision between Savannah Highway and St. Andrews Boulevard.

2. The unimproved lot is 100 x 36 x 115 x 70 x 115 or 11,305 square feet. The property is level with the surrounding lots with trees lining the rear property line. The property is somewhat lower in the rear portion than the front part of the lot and is subject to some flooding during heavy rains.

3. Based upon photographs, the property is located on a bend in the road and traffic markers placed along the edge of the property to direct traffic around the bend. Some photographs show standing water on the lot and therefore support the taxpayers contention that the lot is subject to drainage problems. However, the standing water occurs during heavy rains and is not so significant a factor as to render the property unsuitable for its zoned use. A drainage ditch extends along the street and is also located in front of other property. Additional photographs submitted prior to the hearing show the same drainage ditch with grass growing in it.

4. The assessor selected four comparable sales in the West Ashley area. These are:

5. The Board disregarded Comparables #3 and #4 and accepted Comparables #1 and 2 as being comparable to the subject property. Comparable #4 is located on Colony Drive, a newer subdivision, and is directly on the marsh with a view of the Ashley River. Comparable # 3 located on Colony Drive near Comparable #4 is similar in size to the subject property although it is located in a newer part of the same subdivision and has a marsh view. There is no evidence that any adjustments in value were made for the favorable characteristics of these properties. There are not suitable comparables. The other sales are similar to the subject property and therefore are comparable for purposes of determining a value based upon market sales. Comparable #1 is slightly smaller but is the same general shape as the subject property. Comparable # 2 is also located on a curve similar to the subject property. Both of these properties are located within the vicinity of the subject property with similar characteristics.

6. Many of the lots located on Avondale Avenue have the drainage ditch in front of the property. It is a characteristic of the neighborhood and was a factor in determining the reassessment values of the properties in this area. Contrary to the taxpayers view, all of the lots have the availability of ingress and egress.

7. Any plans for development of the area behind the subject property in another subdivision are speculative and no evidence was presented to demonstrate any effect on the value of the subject property.

8. The existence of the curve does not have any direct effect on the marketability of the property as demonstrated by sales comparable #2 which is also located on a similar curve. This property sold in January 1992 for $20,000.

1. Real property is subjected to tax. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-37-210 (Supp. 1995).

2. The property is taxed to the owner of the property. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-37-610 (Supp. 1995).

3. All property shall be valued for taxation purposes at its true value in money which is the price 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 as to the uses and purposes for which it is adapted and for which it is capable of being used. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-37-930 (Supp. 1995).

4. Fair market value is the measure of true value for taxation purposes. Lindsey v. S.C. Tax Commission, 302 S.C. 504, 397 S.E.2d 95 (1990). There is no valid distinction between market value for sales purposes and market value for taxation purposes under S.C. Code Ann. § 12-37-930. South Carolina Tax Commission v. South Carolina Tax Board of Review, 287 S.C. 415, 339 S.E.2d 131 (Ct. App. 1985).

5. While not conclusive, market sales of comparable properties present probative evidence of the fair market value of similar property. 84 C.J.S. Taxation § 411 (1954).

6. The assessor's decision as to the situs of property, its taxability, and the valuation put on it generally is presumed correct until the contrary appears, and the person complaining has the burden of proving his grievance. Cloyd v. Mabry, 295 S.C. 86, 367 S.E.2d 171 (Ct. App. 1988); 84 C.J.S. Taxation § 537 (1954). The taxpayer has failed to establish that his property is not valued appropriately.

Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby

ORDERED, that the assessor shall value the taxpayer's property identified as Charleston County TMS # 418-10-000-059 at a value of $13,700 for assessment year 1993 and the decision of the Charleston County Board of Assessment Appeal is affirmed.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

_______________________________

ALISON RENEE LEE

Administrative Law Judge

January ______, 1996

Columbia, South Carolina.