South Carolina              
Administrative Law Court
Edgar A. Brown building 1205 Pendleton St., Suite 224 Columbia, SC 29201 Voice: (803) 734-0550

SC Administrative Law Court Decisions

CAPTION:
Lexington County Assessor vs. Gene Hendrix and Charles Hendrix

AGENCY:
Lexington County Assessor

PARTIES:
Petitioners:
Lexington County Assessor

Respondents:
Gene Hendrix and Charles Hendrix
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
96-ALJ-17-0555-CC

APPEARANCES:
Jeff Anderson
Attorney for Petitioner

Gene Hendrix, pro se
For Respondents
 

ORDERS:

ORDER

This is a contested case brought by Leslie Smith, Lexington County Assessor ("Assessor"), against Gene Hendrix and Charles Hendrix ("Taxpayer") concerning property valuations for the 1993, 1994, and 1995 tax years. The parties exhausted all prehearing remedies with the Assessor and the County of Lexington Assessment Appeals Board ("Board"). Jurisdiction is granted to the Administrative Law Judge Division ("ALJD") by S.C. Code Ann.

§ 12-60-2540 (Supp. 1996).

This matter was heard on April 15, 1997. The parties stipulated that the file and the exhibits exchanged between the parties would be made a part of the record and included as evidence.

ISSUE

What is the proper valuation of Taxpayer's property, Tax Map # 004496-02-042, for the 1993, 1994, and 1995 tax years, which was valued at $127,400 during the county-wide reassessment for the 1992 tax year?

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Gene Hendrix and Charles Hendrix, brothers, are the owners of the property which is the subject of this case. The property is identified for tax purposes as Tax Map # 004496-02-042, located at 2437 Mineral Springs Road, Lexington County, South Carolina.

2. Lexington County conducted a county-wide reassessment of real property for the 1992 tax year, and determined the value of Taxpayer's property to be $226,000.

3. The Taxpayer appealed the Assessor's valuation for 1992 to the ALJD after exhausting all prehearing remedies.

4. Judge Stevens of the ALJD issued an Order, dated November 27, 1995, in which he found the value of Taxpayer's property to be $127,400 for the 1992 tax year. See Gene Hendrix and Charles Hendrix v. Leslie Smith, Lexington County Assessor, 95-ALJ-17-0352-CC (filed November 27, 1995).

In a subsequent order arising from the same matter, Judge Stevens remanded to the Board the Taxpayer's challenge of the Assessor's valuations of the subject property for the 1993, 1994, and 1995 tax years, as prehearing remedies were not exhausted on these disputed valuations before reaching the ALJD. See Gene Hendrix and Charles Hendrix v. Leslie Smith, Lexington County Assessor, 96-ALJ-17-0114-CC (filed August 27, 1996).

5. The Board heard the matter on remand and issued a decision on November 27, 1996. The Board decided that the property in question should be assessed for 1993, 1994, and 1995 at the rate set by Judge Stevens for 1992, as no reassessment program may be implemented in a county unless all real property in the county is reassessed in the same year.

6. The Assessor appealed the Board's decision and this contested case ensued.

7. No county-wide reassessment program has occurred in Lexington County since the 1992 reassessment program.

8. The Assessor appraised the subject property on December 31, 1991 and proffered this appraisal as evidence in support of valuations for the tax years in question. The Assessor inspected the subject property on May 15, 1996.

9. There has been no physical change or change in the use of Taxpayer's property since the 1992 county-wide reassessment program.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISCUSSION

Section 12-43-210 is dispositive of the issue in the present case. This section provides, in pertinent part, that: "No reassessment program may be implemented in a county unless all real property in the county, including real property classified as manufacturing property, is reassessed in the same year." S.C. Code Ann. § 12-43-210(B). It is undisputed that the Assessor disagrees with the valuation of the subject property at $127,400, as determined by Judge Stevens for the 1992 tax year, the year of the reassessment program (Docket No. 95-ALJ-17-0352-CC). See Petitioner's Preliminary Tax Statement (filed February 25, 1997) and Motion For Reconsideration of November 30, 1995 filed with Judge Stevens in Gene Hendrix and Charles Hendrix v. Leslie Smith, Lexington County Assessor, Docket No. 95-ALJ-17-0352-CC. Nonetheless, spot reassessments are prohibited pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 12-43-210(B). Clearly, reassessments may not be done unless all property in the county is reassessed in the same year, except in the following situations. The Assessor may, without a county-wide reassessment, change the value of a property previously assessed, when there has been a change in the use or condition of the property [S.C. Code Ann. § 12-37-90 (Supp. 1996)] or when the property was omitted from the tax rolls [S.C. Code Ann. § 12-39-220 (1976)]. Neither situation has been sufficiently established in the case at hand. While the Assessor contends that the Taxpayer's rent stream has increased since the 1992 valuation established by Judge Stevens' Order of 1995, such a rent increase does not constitute a change in the use or condition of the property.

Through reassessment, the Assessor is in essence attempting to do that which it did not do in 1995. That is, the Assessor seeks now to challenge the 1992 valuation, which it contends is erroneous. As spot reassessments are generally prohibited, the Assessor is precluded from reassessing Taxpayer's property for the 1993, 1994, and 1995 tax years. As such, the Taxpayer's property should be assessed at $127,400 for the 1993, 1994, and 1995 tax years.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the property identified as TMS 004496-02-042 shall be assessed at $127,400 for the 1993, 1994, and 1995 tax years.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

______________________________

JOHN D. GEATHERS

Administrative Law Judge

Post Office Box 11667

Columbia, SC 29211-1667

May 5, 1997

Columbia, South Carolina


Brown Bldg.

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2024 South Carolina Administrative Law Court