ORDERS:
ORDER
I. Statement of the Case
This matter is a contested case brought by E. S. Glenn, Jr., as the Petitioner (taxpayer) against the
Dorchester County Assessor (assessor) concerning property valuations for property tax year
1995. The taxpayer exhausted the prehearing remedies with the assessor and the Dorchester
County Board of Assessment Appeals and is now seeking a contested case hearing before the
Administrative Law Judge Division (ALJD). Jurisdiction is granted the ALJD by S.C. Code Ann.
§ 12-60-2540 (Supp. 1995) with this matter having been heard on November 14, 1996. After
considering all of the testimony and evidence, I conclude the property must be valued at $74,000.
II. Issue
What is the value of the property located in Summerville, South Carolina at 602 West 5th North
Street for the tax year 1995?
III. Analysis
1. Positions of Parties:
The assessor argues the taxpayer's property is properly valued at $89,600 based upon the sales of
comparable properties in the area. The taxpayer asserts the age of the property plus the lack of
maintenance presents a property worth $60,000.
2. Findings of Fact:
I find, by a preponderance of the evidence, the following facts:
a. General
1. The taxpayer is the owner of real estate consisting of land with improvements used as a
residence.
2. The property is located in Dorchester County, South Carolina, is identified on the Dorchester
County Tax Map as Tax Map #130-15-04-002, and carries an address of 602 West Fifth North
Street, South Carolina.
3. The property was originally appraised for the property tax year of 1995 on October 30, 1995,
for $89,600.
4. The Dorchester County Board of Assessment Appeals determined that a value of $89,600 was
appropriate.
5. The Petitioner asserts the property must be valued at $60,000 for the tax year 1995.
6. The principal improvement on the lot consists of a one and a half story structure with 1,632
square feet of living space downstairs including two bedrooms and one bath plus 739 square feet
upstairs containing one bath and three rooms suitable for bedrooms.
b. Market Valuation Method
7. An appraisal by the assessor valued the property at $93,000 under a market sales method while
an appraisal by the taxpayer valued the property at $58,000 under the market sales approach.
8. Three comparables were used in the market sales approach by the assessor while the taxpayer
used five market sales.
9. Assessor's comparable number one is seven blocks from the taxpayer's property and consists of
a residence of three bedrooms and two baths with 2,270 square feet with such property having
sold in May 1995 for a sales price of $102,000.
10. After adjustments of a net decrease of $8,600 this sale gave an indicated value for the
taxpayer's property of $93,400.
11. Assessor's comparable number two is one and one half miles from the taxpayer's property and
consists of a residence with four bedrooms and two baths with 2,297 square feet with such
property having sold in August 1995 for a sales price of $123,250.
12. After adjustments of a net decrease of $24,100 this sale gave an indicated value for the
taxpayer's property of $99,150.
13. Assessor's comparable number three is one and one half miles from the taxpayer's property
and consists of a residence with three bedrooms and two baths with 2,367 square feet with such
property having sold in August 1995 for a sales price of $100,000.
14. After adjustments of a net decrease of $10,000 this sale gave an indicated value for the
taxpayer's property of $90,000.15. Taxpayer's comparable number one is 1.5 miles from the
taxpayer's property and consists of a residence with three bedrooms and two baths with 1,938
square feet with such property having sold in December 1993 for a sales price of $91,000.
16. After adjustments of a net decrease of $30,450 this sale gave an indicated value for the
taxpayer's property of $60,550.
17. Taxpayer's comparable number two is 2.5 miles from the taxpayer's property and consists of a
residence with three bedrooms and two baths with 2,170 square feet with such property having
sold in September 1993 for a sales price of $83,000.
18. After adjustments of a net decrease of $28,000 this sale gave an indicated value for the
taxpayer's property of $55,000.
19. Taxpayer's comparable number three is one mile from the taxpayer's property and consists of
a residence with three bedrooms and two baths with 1,500 square feet with such property having
sold in December 1993 for a sales price of $84,000.
20. After adjustments of a net decrease of $27,800 this sale gave an indicated value for the
taxpayer's property of $56,200.
21. Taxpayer's comparable number four is less than one mile from the taxpayer's property and
consists of a residence with two bedrooms and two baths with 1,271 square feet with such
property having sold in July 1993 for a sales price of $87,000.
22. After adjustments of a net decrease of $18,550 this sale gave an indicated value for the
taxpayer's property of $68,450.
23. Taxpayer's comparable number five is less than one mile from the taxpayer's property and
consists of a residence with two bedrooms and two baths with 1,575 square feet with such
property having sold in July 1993 for a sales price of $105,000.
24. After adjustments of a net decrease of $50,300 this sale gave an indicated value for the
taxpayer's property of $54,700.
25. The assessor's appraisal is more compelling than the taxpayer's since the assessor's
comparables rely upon properties that are more similar to the 2,371 square feet of the taxpayer's
property than the typically smaller properties which the taxpayer relies upon as comparables.
26. The assessor's appraisal of $93,000 forms the beginning point for the value of the taxpayer's
property.
27. The assessor did not give sufficient consideration to the condition of the taxpayer's property
since the assessor was denied the opportunity of viewing the interior.
28. The interior of the property as of December 31, 1994 was in a significant degree of disrepair
due to the property not having been lived in for seventeen years.
29. The upstairs had no wall switches for lighting but rather had only "pull-chain" lighting.
30. The ceiling in the upstairs was seven and a half feet in height and was significantly slanted so
as to restrict utilization of the upstairs floor space.
31. No heating or cooling system was installed in the upstairs and no tub was in place in the
bathroom.
32. The upstairs walls were roughed-in wallboard and the door to the upstairs was substandard in
size.
33. The downstairs was in need of kitchen floor covering, interior painting, refinishing of floors,
updating wiring, refinishing kitchen cabinets and replacing appliances.
34. The cost-to-cure the inferior condition of the property is $19,000.
35. Considering all of the factors, the value of the property as of December 31, 1994, in its
unrepaired condition giving due consideration to the cost to repair, is $74,000.
3. Discussion
The issue is the value of the property on December 31, 1994. That 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's appraisal and the assessor's appraisal differ in two
fundamental respects. First, the appraisal for the taxpayer relied upon information as of May 16,
1994 and asserted that the negative condition of the property on that date was still in effect on
December 31, 1994. The assessor, on the other hand, did not view the interior of the house since
access was denied by the taxpayer. Accordingly, the assessor based his value upon an interior
needing no significant repair while the taxpayer valued the property relying upon repairs of
approximately $19,000. The second fundamental difference is that the assessor valued a property
based upon 2,371 square feet while the taxpayer valued a property with 1,632 square feet plus a
"finished upstairs" at $8 per square foot for 739 square feet. Under such an approach, the
comparables used by the taxpayer and the assessor vary markedly.
Based upon the evidence, I find the assessor's appraisal is more compelling than the taxpayer's
since the assessor's comparables rely upon properties that are more similar to the 2,371 square
feet of the taxpayer's property than the typically smaller properties which the taxpayer relies upon
as comparables. Accordingly, the assessor's appraisal of $93,000 forms the basis for the value of
the taxpayer's property.
However, $93,000 is not the value of the property on December 31, 1994. The evidence
establishes that the condition of the taxpayer's property has not been adequately considered by the
assessor. The interior of the property as of December 31, 1994 was in a significant degree of
disrepair due to the property not having been lived in for seventeen years. The assessor did not
give sufficient consideration to the condition since the assessor was denied the opportunity of
viewing the interior. The evidence demonstrates the upstairs had no wall switches for lighting but
rather had only "pull-chain" lighting. The ceiling in the upstairs was only seven and a half feet in
height and was significantly slanted and thus restricting utilization of floor space. No heating or
cooling system was installed in the upstairs and no tub was in place in the bathroom. The upstairs
walls were roughed-in wallboard and the door to the upstairs was substandard in size. The
downstairs was in need of kitchen floor covering, interior painting, refinishing of floors, updating
wiring, refinishing kitchen cabinets and replacing appliances. The best estimate of the
cost-to-cure these conditions is $19,000. Considering all of the factors, the value of the property
as of December 31, 1994, in its unrepaired condition giving due consideration to the cost to repair
is $74,000.
4. Conclusions of Law
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Discussion, I conclude the following as a matter of
law:
1. All property shall be valued for taxation purposes at its true value in money which in all cases
shall be held to be 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 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).
2. Fair market value is the measure of true value for taxation purposes. Lindsey v. S.C. Tax
Comm'n, 302 S.C. 504, 397 S.E.2d 95 (1990).
3. 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); see Cloyd v. Mabry, 295
S.C. 86, 367 S.E.2d 171 (Ct. App. 1988).
4. In estimating the value of property, all 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).
5. Appraisal is not an exact science and the precise weight to be given to any factor is necessarily
a matter of judgment to be determined 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).
6. 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).
7. 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).
8. The property identified as TMS #130-15-04-002 is valued at $74,000 for tax year 1995.
IV. ORDER
Based upon the foregoing Discussion, Findings of Fact, and Conclusions of Law, the following
ORDER is issued:
The assessor is ordered to value the taxpayer's property identified as Dorchester County Tax Map
#130-15-04-002 at a value of $74,000 for assessment year 1995.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
__________________________________
RAY N. STEVENS
Administrative Law Judge
This 9th day of December, 1996
Columbia, South Carolina |
