ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
The Orangeburg County Board of Assessment Appeals (Board) granted a reduction in value to property owned by David and
Fera O'Cain (taxpayer) for property tax year 1996. The Orangeburg County Assessor (assessor) disagreed with the Board
and now challenges the Board's decision by seeking a contested case hearing before the Administrative Law Judge Division
(ALJD). When the facts support jurisdiction, jurisdiction vests in the ALJD under S.C. Code Ann. 12-60-2540 (Supp. 1995).
As a result of the hearing on October 28, 1996, I conclude the property may not be reduced in value since no subject
matter jurisdiction is present.
II. Issue
Does subject matter jurisdiction exist to decide the value of the taxpayer's property for the tax year 1996?
III. Analysis
1. Positions of Parties:
The assessor argues no subject matter jurisdiction exists over the 1996 tax year since the taxpayer failed to timely appeal
the assessor's valuation. The taxpayer asserts the appeal is timely.
2. Findings of Fact:
I find, by a preponderance of the evidence, the following facts:
1. The taxpayer is the owner of property consisting of land with improvements.
2. The property is located at 981 Whitman Street, Orangeburg, South Carolina and is identified on the Orangeburg
County Tax Map as Tax Map #0192-02-02-015.
3. The taxpayer became the owner of the property during November of 1995 and remained the owner of the
property during 1996.
4. The assessor did not issue to the taxpayer an assessment notice for the 1996 tax year.
5. The taxpayer discussed the 1996 value with the assessor's office in mid-March 1996.
6. Prior to March 1, 1996, the taxpayer did not provide written notice to the assessor of the taxpayer's objection
to the assessor's determination of fair market value for the 1996 tax year.
7. By the taxpayer's April 26, 1996 letter to the Board with a copy received by the assessor on May 3, 1996, the
taxpayer requested that the Board "reduce the real estate taxes" on the property.
8. The Board granted the request of the taxpayer and reduced the value.
9. The assessor appealed the Board's decision.
3. Discussion
The issue in dispute is whether subject matter jurisdiction exists on the ground that the taxpayer did not satisfy the
time-to-appeal requirements of S.C. Code Ann. 12-43-300 and 12-60-2510 (Supp. 1995). A hearing body always has
the duty to determine whether it has jurisdiction of a matter. Bridges v. Wyandotte Worsted Co., 243 S.C. 1, 132
S.E.2d 18 (1963). A failure to satisfy the time-to-appeal requirements is fatal since an untimely appeal prohibits the
hearing body from deciding the matter. Mears v. Mears, 287 S.C. 168, 337 S.E.2d 206 (1985); Burnett v. S.C. Highway
Dep't, 252 S.C. 568, 167 S.E.2d 571 (1969); Stroup v. Duke Power Co., 216 S.C. 79, 56 S.E.2d 745 (1949).
The assessor argues the taxpayer failed to timely appeal the 1996 assessment. Under S.C. Code Ann. 12-43-300 and
12-60-2510 (Supp. 1995), if no assessment notice is issued, as is the case here, the taxpayer must file a written objection
to the assessor by March 1 of the tax year in dispute. Thus, the question is whether the taxpayer filed a written appeal
by March 1, 1996.
In early 1996, the taxpayer determined that the value of the property as listed by the assessor for the 1996 tax year was
excessive. The taxpayer discussed the 1996 value with the assessor's office in mid-March 1996 and finally challenged the
assessor's value for the 1996 tax year in a letter dated April 26, 1996 to the Board with a copy received by the assessor
on May 3, 1996. The letter requested that the Board "reduce the real estate taxes" on the property. Prior to the April
26, 1996 letter to the Board, the taxpayer gave no written notice of an objection to the assessor's value for the 1996 tax
year. Since the taxpayer made no timely written notice of objection to the assessor, both the Board and the ALJD lack
subject matter jurisdiction to hear the dispute. Accordingly, the reduction in value by the Board is improper and must
be reversed.
4. Conclusions of Law
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Discussion, I conclude the following as a matter of law:
1. A hearing body has the duty to determine whether it has jurisdiction of a matter. Bridges v. Wyandotte
Worsted Co., 243 S.C. 1, 132 S.E.2d 18 (1963).
2. Jurisdiction vests where the statutory appeal requirements are satisfied. S.C. Code Ann. 12-43-300 and 12-60-2510 (Supp. 1995).
3. A failure to satisfy the time limits for appeal is fatal since an untimely appeal prohibits the hearing body from
deciding the matter. Mears v. Mears, 287 S.C. 168, 337 S.E.2d 206 (1985); Burnett v. S.C. Highway Dep't,
252 S.C. 568, 167 S.E.2d 571 (1969); Stroup v. Duke Power Co., 216 S.C. 79, 56 S.E.2d 745 (1949).
4. The Board and the ALJD lack subject matter jurisdiction since the taxpayer failed to appeal the 1996 assessment
by March 1, 1996. S.C. Code Ann. 12-43-300 and 12-60-2510 (Supp. 1995).
IV. ORDER
Based upon the foregoing Discussion, Findings of Fact, and Conclusions of Law, the following ORDER is issued:
The Board's decision to reduce the value of the taxpayer's property identified as Orangeburg County Tax Map #0192-02-02-015 is reversed and the value as previously determined by the assessor shall be the value of the property for the 1996
tax year.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________________
RAY N. STEVENS
Administrative Law Judge
This 29th day of October, 1996. |
