SC Administrative Law Court Decisions

This is a contested case brought by Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as "taxpayer") against the Lexington County Assessor (hereinafter referred to as "assessor") concerning property valuations for property tax year 1995. The taxpayer exhausted all prehearing remedies and requested a contested case hearing before the Administrative Law Judge Division (hereinafter referred to as "ALJD") pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 12-60-2540 (Supp. 1995). A hearing was conducted on August 5, 1996. Although given adequate notice, Petitioner failed to appear. The hearing was conducted in his absence. Upon consideration of the relevant evidence and the applicable law, I conclude that for the tax year 1995, the fair market value of the property is $35,300.

DISCUSSION

The issue in dispute is the value of the taxpayer's property for tax year 1995. The assessor seeks to value the property at $35,300. The taxpayer contends that valuation is too high and asserts the correct value of the subject property is $15,000. The true value is found by determining the price a willing buyer would pay to a willing seller for the taxpayer's property. S. C. Code Ann. §12-37-930 (Supp. 1995).

The taxpayer asserts the subject property's true value for taxation purposes is $15,000. The assessor initially valued the units at $40,000. Following an objection by the taxpayer, the assessor reduced the valuation to $39,700, and again to $35,300. The taxpayer appealed that determination to the Lexington County Board of Assessment Appeals, which valued the property at $28,000.

FINDINGS OF FACT

I find, by a preponderance of the evidence, the following facts:

1. The Administrative Law Judge Division has personal and subject matter jurisdiction in this case upon it being transmitted to the Division pursuant to a request for a contested case hearing filed by the taxpayer.
2. The parties filed and exchanged preliminary tax appeal statements and exhibits prior to the contested case hearing in this matter.
3. The taxpayer and assessor received written notice of the time, date, location, and subject matter of the hearing. The taxpayer received the notice of hearing by certified mail.
4. A contested case hearing was conducted in this matter August 5, 1996.
5. The taxpayer failed to appear at the hearing or contact the Court prior to the hearing to request a continuance.
6. Without objection, all evidence pre-filed by the parties with the Court was marked and admitted into the record of the hearing (Respondent's Ex. #1 and Court's Ex. #1).
7. The taxpayer is the owner of real property consisting of 1.63 acres of land with improvements thereon.
8. The property is located at 128 Sandy Springs Lane, Lexington, in Lexington County, South Carolina, and is shown in the Lexington County Tax Maps, as TMS #6698-01-016.
9. The improvements situated on the subject real property include a permanent residential dwelling which was formerly a storage building, and three mobile homes.
10. The valuation of the subject property is in dispute for tax year 1995.
11. As part of a county-wide reassessment program, the assessor valued the subject property at $40,000.
12. Prior to reassessment, the subject property was valued at $6,500.
13. The taxpayer asserts the subject property's true value for taxation purposes is $15,000, based upon the former assessment value of the property and the cost of recent improvements.
14. The taxpayer incurred a total of $8,500 in costs for the improvements.
15. Following an objection by the taxpayer, the assessor reduced the valuation to $39,700, and again to $35,300.
16. The taxpayer appealed that determination to the Lexington County Board of Assessment Appeals, which upon conference valued the property at $28,000.
17. At the contested case hearing, the assessor asserted that the true and accurate fair market value of the subject property is $35,300.
18. The permanent residential dwelling situated on the subject property is a renovated storage building. Taxpayer and his family members personally purchased the building supplies and performed the construction work.
19. The renovated dwelling is a wood frame structure covered with vinyl siding which rests on a concrete block and slab foundation.
20. The dwelling is of substandard workmanship.
21. The ridge line of the structure leans.
22. The slab is not level.
23. The appearance of the vinyl siding is not market acceptable.
24. The subject property is zoned R-D, for residential use.
25. The zoning classification of the subject property, as well as for adjacent parcels, also allows mobile homes.
26. A mobile home park is located immediately adjacent to the subject property and is subject to twenty-five feet setback and buffer restrictions.
27. One of the mobile homes in the adjacent mobile home park is located approximately thirty-five feet from the subject property.
28. The assessor presented evidence that, based upon three comparable sales, the subject property should be valued at $47,500.
29. Each of the comparables are single family residential dwellings located within two miles of the subject property.
30. None of the comparables is located adjacent to a mobile home park.
31. The existence of mobile homes on and adjacent to the subject property diminishes the subject property's value.
32. Each of the comparables was originally and exclusively constructed for residential use.
33. The comparables must be further adjusted downward to take into consideration the subject property's inferior location, view, and quality of construction.
34. With adjustment, the three comparable sales offered by the assessor analyzed under a comparable sale appraisal approach support a valuation of the subject property at $35,300.
35. The taxpayer's appraisal of the subject property provides no sales comparison data or analysis.
36. The fair market value of the subject property is $35,300 for tax year 1995.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Discussion, I conclude the following as a matter of law:

1. All real property in the State of South Carolina is subject to taxation, S.C. Code Ann. §12-37-210 (1995).
2. Taxes must be paid by the individual owning the property. S.C. Const. art. X, § 1 (Supp. 1995); S.C. Code Ann. § 12-37-610 (1995).
3. The Administrative Law Judge Division has jurisdiction in this property tax assessmentcase pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. §§ 1-23-600 and 12-60-2510, et seq. (Supp. 1995).
4. Under S.C. Code Ann. § 12-37-930 (Supp. 1995), the measure of value for taxation purposes is fair market value. Lindsey v. S.C. Tax Comm'n, 302 S.C. 504, 397 S.E.2d 95 (1990); 84 C.J.S. Taxation § 411 at 791 (1954).
5. Fair market value of a parcel is:
   . . . the price which 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 of 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).
6. In estimating the value of land, all of its elements or incidents which affect market value or would influence the mind of a purchaser should be considered, such as location, quality, condition, and use. 1969-70 Op. S.C. Att'y. Gen., No. 3045 at 337; See also 84 C.J.S. Taxation § 410 at 784; § 411 at 794 (1954).
7. To determine a fair market price for the subject property, comparisons of the sale price of other properties of the same character may be utilized. See Cloyd v. Mabry, 295 S.C. 86, 367 S.E.2d 172 (Ct. App. 1988); 84 C.J.S. Taxation §§ 410- 411 at 785, 797 (1954).
8. If there are no comparable sales or recent sales to form a basis of comparison, fair market value may be determined by the testimony of persons acquainted with the property who have knowledge and experience qualifying them to form intelligent judgment as to the proper valuation of the property. See Appeal of Hart, 199 A. 225, 131 Pa. Super. 104 (1938).
9. "Appraisal is, of course, not an exact science and the precise weight to be given to any factor is necessarily a matter of judgment, for the court, in the light of the circumstances reflected by the evidence in the individual case." Santee Oil Co., Inc. v. Cox, 265 S.C. 270, 217 S.E.2d 789 (1975).
10. Where an expert's testimony is based upon facts sufficient to form the basis for an opinion, the trier of fact determines its probative weight. Berkeley Elec. Coop. v. S.C. Public Serv. Comm'n, 304 S.C. 15, 402 S.E.2d 674 (1991); Smoak v. Liebherr-Am., Inc., 281 S.C. 420, 422, 315 S.E.2d 116, 118 (1984).
11. A trier of fact is not compelled to accept an expert's testimony, but may give it the weight and credibility he determines it deserves and may accept the testimony of one expert over another. Florence County Dep't of Social Serv. v. Ward, 310 S.C. 69, 425 S.E.2d 61 (1992); Greyhound Lines v. S.C. Public Serv. Comm'n, 274 S.C. 161, 262 S.E.2d 18 (1980); S.C. Cable Tel. Assn. v. Southern Bell Tel. and Tel. Co., 308 S.C. 216, 417 S.E.2d 586 (1992).
12. To determine the value of the subject property, numerous factors must be taken into consideration, including but not limited to: size; location; condition; access; highest and best use of property; and zoning restrictions. Any one or a combination of these factors have the potential to affect fair market value.
13. The cost approach of appraisal relied upon by the taxpayer is not the appropriate or most accurate method of calculating the fair market value of the subject property.
14. For tax year 1995, the fair market value of the subject property, identified as Lexington County TMS #6698-01-016, is $35,300.
15. Petitioner, having received adequate written notice of the time date, location, and subject matter of the hearing, but failing to appear or communicate with the court to request a continuance, is in default and subject to dismissal of his petition with prejudice pursuant to ALJD Rule 23; however, the Court admitted the taxpayer's evidence as Court's exhibits at the hearing and gave them due consideration, and required the assessor to present her case in the taxpayer's absence.
16. Any issues raised in the proceedings or hearing of this case but not addressed in this Order are deemed denied. ALJD Rule 29(B).

ORDER

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Lexington County Assessor shall value the taxpayer's property, TMS #6698-01-016, at $35,300 for tax year 1995, and all subsequent years until reassessment.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

_____________________________

STEPHEN P. BATES

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE

September 17, 1996

Columbia, South Carolina