ORDERS:
ORDER
I. Statement of the Case
This matter is a contested case brought by Oscar C. Fitzhenry, as the Petitioner (taxpayer) against
the Charleston County Assessor (assessor) concerning property valuations for property tax year 1994.
The taxpayer exhausted the prehearing remedies with the assessor and the Charleston 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.
1996) with this matter having been heard on May 1, 1997. After considering all of the testimony and
evidence, I conclude the property must be valued at $226,200.
II. Issue
What is the value for the 1994 tax year of the taxpayer's property located in the West Ashley area
of Charleston, South Carolina at 1223 Pembrooke Drive?
III. Analysis
1. Positions of Parties:
The assessor argues the taxpayer's property is properly valued at $230,000 based upon the sales of
comparable properties in the area. The taxpayer asserts the property's low-lying nature, the damage
to the property's retaining wall and the misclassification of the property as a deep water lot rather
than tidal access requires a value of $175,000.
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 Charleston County, South Carolina, is identified on the Charleston
County Tax Map as Tax Map # 349-10-00-039, and carries an address of 1223 Pembrooke
Drive, Charleston, South Carolina.
3. The property was originally appraised by the assessor for the property tax year of 1994 at
$230,000 of which $150,000 was attributable to the lot and the remaining $80,000 was
attributable to the house.
4. The Charleston County Board of Assessment Appeals determined that the value of $230,000
was appropriate.
5. The taxpayer asserts the property must be valued at $175,000 for the tax year 1994.
6. The principal improvement on the lot consists of a one story structure with 2,573 square feet
of living space including four bedrooms and three baths.
The taxpayer's land consists of a 16,093 square foot lot fronting directly on Wappoo Creek
and providing a marsh view as well.
Previously, the property was improved with a retaining wall along Wappoo Creek but the
strong current in the creek collapsed the wall and eroded approximately ten (10) feet of the
rear of the lot.
b. Market Valuation Method
9. An appraisal by the assessor found fair market value supported a selling price of $270,000
under a market sales method while an appraisal by the taxpayer asserts the market supports
a selling price of $175,000 under the market sales approach.
10. Four comparables were used in the market sales approach by the assessor while the taxpayer
used three market sales.
11. Assessor's comparable number one, 1483 South Edgewater (Tax Map # 349-13-00-002), is
located approximately one mile from the taxpayer's property in the Edgewater Park
subdivision.
Assessor's comparable number one fronts on the Stono River and has an improvement
consisting of a four bedroom, two bath home containing 2,388 square feet, a dock and a pool.
Assessor's comparable one sold in March of 1990 for $303,000.
Adjustments were made to comparable one based on its superior location, deep water access,
pool, and dock to give an indicated value for the taxpayer's property of $266,490.
Assessor's comparable two, 1311 S. Edgewater (Tax Map # 349-14-00-001), is located in
the Edgewater Park subdivision approximately a mile from the taxpayer's property.
Assessor's comparable two consists of a lot fronting on Elliott's Cut with limited access to
the water.
Assessor's comparable two has an improvement consisting of a three bedroom, two bath
home with 2,024 square feet.
Assessor's comparable two sold in May of 1992 for $259,000.
Adjustments to comparable two for superior condition but inferior view results in an
indicated value for the taxpayers property of $275,969.
Assessor's comparable three, 1792 Chelwood Drive (Tax Map # 415 -07-00-072) is located
in the Northbridge Terrace subdivision three miles from the taxpayer's property.
Assessor's comparable three is located on the marsh fronting Orange Grove Creek and
requires a two hundred foot dock to access the water.
Assessor's comparable three is improved with a four bedroom, two bath home containing
2,234 square feet.
Assessor's comparable three sold in July of 1991 for $247,350.
Adjustments to comparable three for a superior condition, a dock, and for an inferior
location, results in an indicated value for the taxpayer's property of $252,866.
Assessor's comparable four, 136 East Edgewater (Tax Map # 349-14-00-025), is located in
the Edgewater Park subdivision approximately one mile from the taxpayer's property.
Assessor's comparable four consists of a lot fronting on Wappoo Creek and containing an
improvement consisting of a three bedroom, two and one-half bath home containing 2,213
square feet along with a pool and a dock.
Assessor's comparable four sold in July of 1991 for $335,000.
Adjustments to comparable four for its superior condition, pool and dock, results in an
indicated value for the taxpayer's property of $300,676.
The Assessor's appraisal determined the market supports a value for the taxpayer's property
of $270,000 of which $80,000 represents the residence and $190,000 the land.
30. Taxpayer's comparable number one is 5 blocks west of the taxpayer's property and consists
of a residence with three bedrooms and two baths with 1,760 square feet with such property
having sold in October of 1993 for a sales price of $157,000.
31. After adjustments of a net increase of $19,760 this sale gave an indicated value for the
taxpayer's property of $176,760.
32. Taxpayer's comparable number two is ten blocks from the taxpayer's property and consists
of a residence with four bedrooms and two and a half baths with 2,465 square feet with such
property having sold in September of 1993 for a sales price of $187,000.
33. After adjustments of a net decrease of $16,340 this sale gave an indicated value for the
taxpayer's property of $170,660.
34. Taxpayer's comparable number three is five miles from the taxpayer's property and consists
of a residence with four bedrooms and three and a half baths with 2,300 square feet with such
property having sold in April of 1993 for a sales price of $245,000.
35. After adjustments of a net decrease of $63,040 this sale gave an indicated value for the
taxpayer's property of $181,960.
36. Wappoo Creek contains sufficient water at low tide to allow for the docking and navigation
with care of boats from 28 feet to 31 feet in length.
37. The taxpayer's lot is a deep-water access rather than a tidal access.
38. 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 deep water access of the
taxpayer's lot.
39. The assessor's appraisal of $270,000 forms the beginning point for the value of the taxpayer's
property.
40. The $270,000 appraisal of market sales must be adjusted for the need to establish a retaining
wall to prevent further erosion of the lot.
41. The cost to establish a retaining wall is $40,000.
42. The assessor's $270,000 appraisal of market sales must be adjusted for the need to eliminate
standing water creating moisture under the residence.
43. The cost to eliminate moisture under the residence is $3,800.
44. The fair market value of the taxpayer's property is $226,200.
3. Discussion
The issue is the value of the property on December 31, 1993. 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. 1996). In this case, the taxpayer's appraisal and the assessor's appraisal differ
in two fundamental respects.
First, the taxpayer's appraisal asserts the lot is a tidal access lot while the assessor argues the lot is
a deep water access lot. Considering all of the testimony and evidence, I cannot agree with the
taxpayer. Here, boats up to 31 feet in length can navigate with care in Wappoo Creek even at low
tide. Thus, twenty-four hour navigation is available from the taxpayer's lot. Such navigation
presents a deep water lot. Accordingly, the assessor's comparables are more persuasive since the
assessor relies upon deep water lots rather than the inappropriate tidal access lots used by the
taxpayer.
Second, however, the assessor's market sales approach of $270,000 does not accurately reflect the
value of the taxpayer's property. The assessor must adequately consider the need to install a
retaining wall to prevent further erosion and the need to eliminate moisture damage to the residence.
In fact, the lot has already lost up to ten feet of soil to the creek and the moisture under the residence
is a contributing factor to wood damage for the house. Such required repairs are reductions in value
that a willing buyer would impose in arriving at a value. Accordingly, the cost of such repairs is a
reasonable estimate of the loss in value due to the lack of a retaining wall and the presence of
moisture at the residence. The retaining wall will cost $40,000 and the moisture under the house can
be eliminated with a drain system costing $3,800. I do not find any other reductions to value are
required. Thus, the assessor's market value must be reduced by $43,800 to produce a fair market
value of $226,200 ($146,200 land and $80,000 residence)..
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. 1996).
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. Co-op. v. S.C. Public Serv.
Comm'n, 304 S.C. 15, 402 S.E.2d 674 (1991); Smoak v. Liebherr-America, 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 (Ct.
App. 1992); Greyhound Lines v. S.C. Public Serv. Comm'n, 274 S.C. 161, 262 S.E.2d 18
(1980); S.C. Cable Television Ass'n. v. Southern Bell Tel. and Tel. Co., 308 S.C. 216, 417
S.E.2d 586 (1992).
8. The property identified as Tax Map # 349-10-00-039 is valued at $226,200 for tax year 1994.
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 1223 Pembrooke Drive,
Charleston, South Carolina, Charleston County Tax Map # 349-10-00-039 at a value of $226,200
for assessment year 1994.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
RAY N. STEVENS
Administrative Law Judge
This 14th day of July, 1997
Columbia, South Carolina |
